Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[Z]

milesalpha (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=9406)
Never need an expert...........

Then you're an idiot.

[Christophera]

And you never give a reason why you believe this to be true.
The building was collapsing. There's no reason that welded beams would remain standing while the thousands of tons of debris was falling around it - none whatsoever.

They were core columns which are of the strongest elements in any tall structure. Of the 47, 1300 foot columns a few MUST be seen, bending, leaning, toppling from the core area when the core area is so clearly seen in images. When they are not seen and images such as this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) show the outside dimensions of the core intact, wherein the core columns if the existed would be intact, and NO PROTRUDING core columns are seen, one can only conclude the columns did not exist. This is logical.

Do you do logic? Can you accept logic? Or, is the conclusion simply something you do not want to know?

You're a stupid liar.

Or, are you pretending to be stupid and upset that I cannot pretend to be stuid and so accuse me of lying in order to protect the lie you want to believe instead of the truth because you do not want to know the truth?

[Z]

[QUOTE=Christophera]
No problem, can you understand an image of self destruction in action? (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)

Yep - and that ain't one of them.

[Christophera]

How do you explain the many, many steel suspension bridges that do not flex unacceptably in the wind? Do they have concrete cores?

And why is it that you think tall buildings do not move slightly in the wind?

You are, of course, saying that there are concrete cores in all tall buildings, then, as you claim it is needed for stability? Could you please cite a source for this assumption or stop making it.

You are trying to imply I am conducting cognitive distortions whn that is EXACTLY what you are doing.


All-or-nothing thinking - Thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every" or "never". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma.)

Overgeneralization - Taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion



bridges do flex in the wind.

The twin towers moved slightly in the wind, 3 to 7 feet at the top was acceptable and within design.

All towers of the propostions of the twin towers have steel reinforced tubular cast concrete cores. The have to, otherswise they felx TOO MUCH like the Tacoma narrows bridge did.

[Z]

Finally, someone responds to se7ensnakes, query. I would doubt the response is a surprise.

However, se7ensnakes is on topic here and just "wondered" what some might think of the historically documented, unexecuted plan which show the propensity of the infiltrated US government to conduct deceptive, false flag operations on American soil to manipulatate opinion in support of offensive military actions.

Bell, do you like having an infiltrated government that kills innocent people to use your tax dollars to conduct war?

Don't know about Bell, but I'm fine with our government.

Let's see:

Medicine: Check.
Freedom of speech: Check.
Creature comforts: Check.
Freedom to live where I want: Check.
Freedom to love who I want: Mostly.
---Restrictions to freedom enforced? Never.

Yeah, I'm happy. The government works as incompetently as it has my whole entire life. Innocent people die in wars every single day. Oh well.

And I always get my tax dollars back. I just don't make enough money to worry 'bout it.

[Bell]

homer and BV and others have utterly failed to show the supposed steel core columns from the images which SHOW ALL THE MAJOR STRCUTURAL ELEMENTS as the towers are coming apart and down.

They, and a lot of other members, have shown you. The fact that you are too stuborn, ignorant or just plain nuts, does not result in a failing on our side, but a failing on yours.

The concrte core was vital to the towers stability and safety.

Steel flexes WAY TOO MUCH in those proportions.

Here is a steel suspension bridge in a 42 MPH wind a few hundred feet off a river.

<spam>

Imagine the tower faces to the wind and those opposite. Do you know how a wing flies? It is not so much the pressure below holding the wing up. it is the low pressure above lifting, just tlike the sail on a boat.

The towers faces "flew" or "sailed" slightly caused a twisting. Along witht he bending and the load on the towers, the narrow proportions caused deformations potentially resulting in catastrophic that the architect who certified the tower safe COULD NOT ACCEPT and so the steel core columns originally concieved of were rejected in favor of a steel reinforced, tubular, cast concrete core.

And this was, what, in your alleged documentary, for which there excists NO PROOF it was ever broadcast, let alone made? Also, why the hell would they show the construction of the alleged concrete core, WHEN IT WAS SUPPOSED TO REMAIN A SECRET FOR ALL OF THE WORLD?!

[Bell]

Finally, someone responds to se7ensnakes, query. I would doubt the response is a surprise.

Please Chris, go and talk to him, ask him how he thinks the towers were blown up.

However, se7ensnakes is on topic here and just "wondered" what some might think of the historically documented, unexecuted plan which show the propensity of the infiltrated US government to conduct deceptive, false flag operations on American soil to manipulatate opinion in support of offensive military actions.

Shifting goalposts, Chris?

Bell, do you like having an infiltrated government that kills innocent people to use your tax dollars to conduct war?

I'm from The Netherlands, it says so right under my avatar. I have also said this to you before. So much for your photographic memory.

[Bell]

ALSO! I would like to know what you have to say about this post?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2152796&postcount=9078 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=9078)

For the so-many-th time...

[Z]

They were core columns which are of the strongest elements in any tall structure. Of the 47, 1300 foot columns a few MUST be seen, bending, leaning, toppling from the core area when the core area is so clearly seen in images. When they are not seen and images such as this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) show the outside dimensions of the core intact, wherein the core columns if the existed would be intact, and NO PROTRUDING core columns are seen, one can only conclude the columns did not exist. This is logical.

No it isn't. The core columns were segments of steel, welded together, which were then faced with extreme stresses. As soon as horizontal or diagonal bracing was destroyed by falling debris, the columns would have collapsed, snapping into smaller segments, under the force of debris from above.

You're assuming the columns would have punched through hundreds of tons of debris to remain standing without horizontal or diagonal support.

That is not logical.

Do you do logic? Can you accept logic? Or, is the conclusion simply something you do not want to know?

Actually I score extremely well in logic tests and maxed my logic scores on the ASVAB test. My complete psych eval from the military shows me to be almost entirely logical-analytical oriented, and my abilities in logic-related fields - mathematics, chemistry, physics, geometry, analytical geometry, trigonometry, calculus, etc - resulted in almost straight A grades in all logic-oriented fields of study.

The conclusion is that you're an unschooled halfwit with a massive ego problem, who probably has to have help making sure the skidmarks are in the back of his underpants.


Or, are you pretending to be stupid and upset that I cannot pretend to be stuid

No, it doesn't upset me one bit... you don't have to pretend. You just are.

and so accuse me of lying in order to protect the lie you want to believe instead of the truth because you do not want to know the truth?

The only lies here involve documentaries that never existed, time-travelling Mohawks, etc.

[TellyKNeasuss]

It is both depending on the timing, delays and phase of the demo. Not a simple matter, very complex.

This non-sense doesn't even remotely address my point.

[JonnyFive]

Glad to see you haven't forgotten me.


You are trying to imply I am conducting cognitive distortions whn that is EXACTLY what you are doing.


All-or-nothing thinking - Thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every" or "never". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma.)

Overgeneralization - Taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion


Actually, I am saying you are comparing unlike objects in an attempt to prove some strange point. I am also saying you are overgeneralizing.

No, I am pointing out the fact you are showing one extreme example as somehow representative of something which it is not. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge was a failure of design, it had nothing to do with anything inherent in steel construction.

Yes, you are applying an overgeneralization. You are saying the TNB is somehow applicable to the Twin Towers. I am pointing out that TNB is not even applicable to all bridges, let alone to something with a totally different design and function.


bridges do flex in the wind.

So what? I never said they didn't. But not to the same degree as the TNB. Everything long or tall and thin flexes in in the wind.


The twin towers moved slightly in the wind, 3 to 7 feet at the top was acceptable and within design.

So what? Again, I never said they didn't. Again, what does the TNB have to do with anything?

All towers of the propostions of the twin towers have steel reinforced tubular cast concrete cores. The have to, otherswise they felx TOO MUCH like the Tacoma narrows bridge did.

(I assume you mean "proportions" and not "propositions")

Prove it. The following are assertions you have made without any proof at all:

-Walls got thinner higher up.
-Workers were not in the union.
-Secret clearance was required to work at the site.
-C4 is still viable after 30 years or is preserved by concrete.
-There was a PBS documentary showing a core.
-All towers the proportion of the Twin Towers have reinforced concrete structure.


But wait, there more:
-The Sears Tower is a steel tube construction (http://www.searstower.org/home.html).

You said all, Chris, but I have shown you at least one example where this is not the case. But when you replied to me, you said that such a dichotomy was a fallacy of logic.

Clearly, it is possible to build a tower of that height without a concrete core. So, provide better proof that there was a core. Don't post the same images, post something better.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Perhaps you do not know a primary rule of tower design.

Keep the major weight BELOW the mid point of the tower to avoid instability

The structural design for the associated loads necessarily is adjusted for the reduced weight above.

Still only needing a quarter of the strength of the core to support the top two-thirds of the tower doesn't seem realistic. And that's even if your claim of a 4-foot wall is correct, which I doubt.

[Z]

All towers of the propostions of the twin towers have steel reinforced tubular cast concrete cores. The have to, otherswise they felx TOO MUCH like the Tacoma narrows bridge did.

Actually, that's incorrect. Many skyscrapers use concrete-cladded steel core and frame construction - which is prone to fire collapse. In fact, the larger the structure, the less concrete is generally used. The Petronas towers may be the largest intact structure to have a concrete core - and it's a fairly experimental mixture of concrete they used.

[JonnyFive]

The Petronas towers may be the largest intact structure to have a concrete core - and it's a fairly experimental mixture of concrete they used.

According to Wikipedia, concrete was chosen because steel was too expensive. The concrete design is novel enough to warrant prominent mention.

Life is so much easier when you don't have to lie through your teeth to support your crazy ideas.

[chipmunk stew]

I think that OPERATION NORTHWOOD is exemplary of some of what the government / private sector is capable of. ...

(Bolding mine)

Exactly who would be left after these two areas are filtered out? Non-profit groups? You?
...
The homeless & unemployed. Illegal immigrants. Prisoners. Terrorists. Gansters. Extraterrestrials. I think these all qualify.

[Z]

The homeless & unemployed. Illegal immigrants. Prisoners. Terrorists. Gansters. Extraterrestrials. I think these all qualify.

I only fit three out of these...---

Er, I mean, I'm in the Guv'mint/Pirvet Sexor...

[JonnyFive]

The homeless & unemployed. Illegal immigrants. Prisoners. Terrorists. Gansters. Extraterrestrials. I think these all qualify.

Point taken, I have been informed.

Obviously, those are the only people that we can trust.


I only fit three out of these...---

Er, I mean, I'm in the Guv'mint/Pirvet Sexor...

Then you're trustworthy. For now.

What? You're a sexual pervert? You like Guv brand mints? I've never heard of 'em.

[Porkpie Hat]

Do you do logic? Can you accept logic? Or, is the conclusion simply something you do not want to know?
Hey I do logic!

And after considering the body of evidence in this thread I find it logical that the core of the towers was made of steel not concrete.

BTW, can I see your two pictures again. Pretty please.

Thanks in advance.:)

[uruk]

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4426&d=1165461601



The diagonal braced vertical in the middle leeft is the moment frame.

No we have proff that you do not have a clue about structural elements of the WTC towers.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4428&stc=1&d=1165471286

Somehow that statement coming from you has no meaning.

You are purposfully ignoring the diagnal cross beams. You were wrong in your statement and your not man enough to admit it. You still haven't explained this gaff you made concerning Tony Jebson's e-mail.:

Originaly posted by Christophera:
"Tony Jebson" <jebbo@texas.net> wrote:

>......Apparently, the WTC towers had no internal
>structural columns but relied on the exterior structure for
>support / strength. No doubt the impact of an airplane does
>this no end of harm.
I worked in downtown NY in the late 1960's when the towers were
built! At lunch time we went to the construction site to watch the
progress. And we saw them first buildt an internal thick walled
rectangular concrete core inside which later the elevators ran. The
steel work was erected around this core several floors behind!

-=tom=-

Seems like "Tony Jebson" is a liar or seriously mistaken.

Where is the concrete core several floors ahead of the steel work in these pictures?

Come on Chris If Tony Jebson is right there should be a concrete tube soaring abouve the steel . Where is it?

Here is your statement agreeing with Mr "Jebson" concerning the WTC1's concrete core being built ahead of the steel structures.
Below is a usenet comment which descibes what I saw in the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers". The WTC 1 core was constructed ahead of the steel erection. After thinking about it I realized I would have built the steel frame first and used it to align the elevator guide rails.
And just so restrict your weasle room here is a picture of WTC1 taken at street level. Where is the concrete core erected ahead of the steel?
(also notice the diagnal cross connect beams. I pointed them out with green arrows Chris.)

[TellyKNeasuss]

They were core columns which are of the strongest elements in any tall structure. Of the 47, 1300 foot columns a few MUST be seen, bending, leaning, toppling from the core area when the core area is so clearly seen in images. When they are not seen and images such as this (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) show the outside dimensions of the core intact, wherein the core columns if the existed would be intact, and NO PROTRUDING core columns are seen, one can only conclude the columns did not exist. This is logical.

Do you do logic? Can you accept logic? Or, is the conclusion simply something you do not want to know?

False dichotomies are not logic.

Claiming that there were explosives in a concrete core that blew up the concrete core but that the concrete core was still intact is also not logical.

[uruk]

I think that OPERATION NORTHWOOD is exemplary of some of what the government / private sector is capable of. Plant bombs in American cities, hurt american citizens, shoot missiles to cuban refugees floating on the water, all so that americans populace support a war. What else can i say.....it is very simple.
If Operation Northwood had indeed taken place, I could just see you people arguing that the plane over cuba was really full of students. Most of you anti-conspiracy people just dont think. You are really a danger to our freedom!

What happened to the guy who proposed that plan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Look under the heading "reaction"

I'm not saying that certain individuals in our government are not abouve this sort of thing. But I haven't seen any proof of such activities. An actual terrorist attack would be just as good a reason for these individuals to take advantage of as a faked one. Even more so.

You say it's obvious but you don't support your claim. Looks can be decieving. Alot of thing look obvious but are not always what they appear to be. I've seen controlled demolitions. There are striking differences between a controlled demolition and the collapse of the WTC Towers. One is the prep time and effort that it takes to prepare a building for demolition. That fact has caused our poor Chris here to arrive at the incredulous conclusion that the buildings were built with explosive devices in place 30 years before they to be blown up.
It takes months and a whole team of people and alot of work to prepare a smaller building for controlled demolition. Can you explain why the thousands of people the passing through that building never gave testimony to that fact?
Controlled demolition detonate from the ground up (youtube the videos) so that they can control where the debris lands. The WTC collapse from the top down. A series of explosions can be heard from quite a distance away in a controlled demolition. You can clearly hear the series of exlosions in the videos of controlled demolitions. You don't hear them in the videos of the WTC collapse. The only explosion (or explosion like) sounds are only givin in eyewitness testimony. Why is that?

[Big Al]

:-]

great minds etc

BV

Synchronicity, Bon! ;)

[uruk]

You are trying to imply I am conducting cognitive distortions whn that is EXACTLY what you are doing.


All-or-nothing thinking - Thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every" or "never". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma.)

Overgeneralization - Taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion



bridges do flex in the wind.

The twin towers moved slightly in the wind, 3 to 7 feet at the top was acceptable and within design.

All towers of the propostions of the twin towers have steel reinforced tubular cast concrete cores. The have to, otherswise they felx TOO MUCH like the Tacoma narrows bridge did.

And yet the Brooklyn and San Fancisco bridges (which do not have concrete cores) withstand wind rather nicely. You are really no good at this Chris.

[pagan]

What happened to the guy who proposed that plan?

Look under the heading "reaction"

I'm not saying that certain individuals in our government are not abouve this sort of thing. But I haven't seen any proof of such activities. An actual terrorist attack would be just as good a reason for these individuals to take advantage of as a faked one. Even more so.

You say it's obvious but you don't support your claim. Looks can be decieving. Alot of thing look obvious but are not always what they appear to be. I've seen controlled demolitions. There are striking differences between a controlled demolition and the collapse of the WTC Towers. One is the prep time and effort that it takes to prepare a building for demolition. That fact has caused our poor Chris here to arrive at the incredulous conclusion that the buildings were built with explosive devices in place 30 years before they to be blown up.
It takes months and a whole team of people and alot of work to prepare a smaller building for controlled demolition. Can you explain why the thousands of people the passing through that building never gave testimony to that fact?
Controlled demolition detonate from the ground up (youtube the videos) so that they can control where the debris lands. The WTC collapse from the top down. A series of explosions can be heard from quite a distance away in a controlled demolition. You can clearly hear the series of exlosions in the videos of controlled demolitions. You don't hear them in the videos of the WTC collapse. The only explosion (or explosion like) sounds are only givin in eyewitness testimony. Why is that?


He became became supreme commander of NATO.

Wonder if he had anything to do with GLADIO.

[uruk]

He became became supreme commander of NATO.

Wonder if he had anything to do with GLADIO.

That was after Kennedy kicked him out of office. (more than likely for proposing the idea)

Maybe NATO liked the Northwoods idea?

[Big Al]

Glad to see you haven't forgotten me.But wait, there more: -The Sears Tower is a steel tube construction (http://www.searstower.org/home.html).

Omigod: I must call the Mayor of Chicago! It must have a concrete core wired to blow!

Chris, if it's so impossible to make a very tall steel-cored structure, why on Earth did Yamasaki et al make such a feature of it having a steel core to maximise internal space? I would have thought every structural engineer in the world would have furrowed his or her brow, done a few quick calculations on a napkin and guessed that something was up.

You're living in la-la-land, my friend.

[TellyKNeasuss]

i dont know why we even continue. I think that its REALLY time to just close and end this thread.

NO one buys into Christophera's fantasy claims. Even normal joe schmoes on the street know that there was never a concrete core in the World Trade Center buildings.

WE really shoud stop aruging with someone who has been proven to have some mental deficiency.

And its really a non issue, since concrete core or not, the buildings collapsed. they are gone, and there is a big hole currently at the site where they once stood.

Since no one believes his claims, that means we REALLY do not have antyhing to worry about. And to the public at large, they really dont give a rat's booty whether or not the building had a concrete core, swiss cheese as a core, or were made of jello.

I find Christophera quite entertaining.

[Architect]

I find Christophera quite entertaining.

You know I tend to agree with that, although it's hard to say why and I suspect that we're all just being a bit cruel by feeding his delusion.

In all the time of this thread, he's not convinced a single soul, his arguments have become increasingly bizarre (who would have thought it possible), and he's revealed his deep mental instability through the whole hypnosis thing.

Of course it's possible that he thinks that it's him that's given us a damn good hiding..... :p

[Architect]

Chris, if it's so impossible to make a very tall steel-cored structure, why on Earth did Yamasaki et al make such a feature of it having a steel core to maximise internal space? I would have thought every structural engineer in the world would have furrowed his or her brow, done a few quick calculations on a napkin and guessed that something was up.



I was speaking to one of the lads in the Arup's tall buildings team about this the other day; WTC was before his time, but he tells me that when it was constructed there was some concern from the engineering community that it was too "fragile" because it was all so lightweight.

Of course it turned out that Yamasaki was right, but you would have thought that if it was really impossible then someone would have blown the whistle.

One day I may try and find if anything was published on it at the time, but that would mean a trip to a real library as it probably isn't going to have been put online later.

[JonnyFive]

Of course it's possible that he thinks that it's him that's given us a damn good hiding..... :p

I would even venture to say that it is highly probable.


Omigod: I must call the Mayor of Chicago! It must have a concrete core wired to blow!

Watch out for disinfo agents!

[Architect]

I'm not even responding to the rest of your nonsense.


That's because you can't Chris. Real questions about your theory are too dofficult to evade. You don't know how the reinforcement worked, or how junctions were formed. You don't understand how the lifts were laid out. You don't know much about concrete work.

If you did respond, you would only dig yourself deeper into that hole of yours.:jaw-dropp

[uruk]

Hello Architect, Might you be inclined to prove me with some assistance?:


I've asked him (chris) to show evidence concerning the "so called" elevator rail guides.
I emailed Otis Elevator company concerning the models of elevators they installed into the WTC towers. this was thier response:



Hello Mr. Ethridge: My name is Stephen Showers and I am the Corporate
Archivist here at Otis Elevator. The otis.com staff forwarded your email to
me. Thank you for your inquiry. The best public source of elevator
information on the WTC Towers and other building of the complex is Elevator
World magazine. They can be reached at: www.elevator-world.com. They have
done several comprehensive stories on the whole WTC. Otis did install the
original elevators, escalators and dumbwaiters in the whole World Trade
Center. Each tower had 104 elevators each. There were 2 types: gearless
and geared. The gearless were model numbers 339, 269, 219 and 155. The
geared models had various model numbers depending on the installation and
use. The November, 2001 issue of Elevator World has an excellent breakdown
of the whole system and you should be able to acquire a copy of it for your
research. I hope this information helps. Good luck in your research.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: ezhil.nanjappan@otis.com [mailto:ezhil.nanjappan@otis.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:26 AM
To: information.request@otis.com
Subject: Information Request

I then sent an email to Elevator World and got This response:


Mr. Ethridge:
Please forgive my lateness in replying to the below e-mail, we do have the November 2001 issue available for $15.00 plus postage (back issues are sent by ground UPS) and usually runs around $7.00 for a total of $22.00.

Please let me know if you are interested – you may also visit this link and order this way just type in November 2001 issue in comments section, the link is http://elevatorbooks.stores.yahoo.ne...ofelwoma1.html This issue is only available in print version.

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Patricia Cartee
Commercial Director

Before I lay down $22.00 in the name of debating Chris, I was hoping that, since you are in the trade, might have access to this issue.

Better yet, might you have access to the technical information for the elevator models mentioned in the Otis response?

[Horatius]

I think that OPERATION NORTHWOOD is exemplary of some of what the government / private sector is capable of. Plant bombs in American cities, hurt american citizens, shoot missiles to cuban refugees floating on the water, all so that americans populace support a war. What else can i say.....it is very simple.
If Operation Northwood had indeed taken place, I could just see you people arguing that the plane over cuba was really full of students. Most of you anti-conspiracy people just dont think. You are really a danger to our freedom!

Hey, Socks says Hello!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9490457867329d6d2.jpg

[hcmom]

Obvious plumes of ejected concrete particulate (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg)

Obvious uniform explosions of concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)

Obvious "steering" charges" ahead of major detonations. (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)


I know this was an entire page ago, sorry...(by now maybe even more!)
Obvious plumes of ejected concrete particulate (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg)
Why wouldn't I expect concrete-colored particulate to be ejected from a severely damaged burning building as it collapses?
Obvious uniform explosions of concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)
I'm failing to see anything uniform explosion-ish in this picture. I will grant that I do see more concrete-colored particulate.
Obvious "steering" charges" ahead of major detonations. (http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg)
It looks more like "obvious"ly a severely damaged burning building is collapsing, and the pressure is having to find an escape route...
Below, the only feasible. realistic, comprehensive explanation on the web for near free fall and total pulverization of everything but heavy steel.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.htmlTo give Chris credit...it must be an incredible weight to bear to have the only web-site out of millions to show the truth. It's truly amazing that dozens of workers can be shut up, but that Chris is permitted to publish the real story.

[JonnyFive]

Hey, Socks says Hello!

CONSPIRACY! That cat has a CONCRETE CORE! I can see 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS!

Obvious cat concrete (http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9490457867329d6d2.jpg)

Obvious concrete core (http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9490457867329d6d2.jpg)

Obvious shaped charges exploding cat (http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9490457867329d6d2.jpg)

[Bell]

To give Chris credit...it must be an incredible weight to bear to have the only web-site out of millions to show the truth. It's truly amazing that dozens of workers can be shut up, but that Chris is permitted to publish the real story.

To bad his responsability stops right there. He refuses to take all of his earth shattering evidence to court, thus letting the perpetrators, who murdered 3000 innocent people, get away with it. He should be very, very ashamed of himself.

[Pardalis]

I just noticed "realistice" is missing from this thread's tags.

:(

[JonnyFive]

I just noticed "realistice" is missing from this thread's tags.

Chris should really fix that now.

It's already the only thread for "concrete core" "pulverization" and "free fall". Why not add another unique tag?

[Bell]

I just noticed "realistice" is missing from this thread's tags.

:(

It's still there, but... :hypnodisk :hypnodisk

[tsig]

We're not just taking about simple fires here. How many other major structures have you seen that have had fully-laden airliners crash straight into them, simultaneously exposing several floors to a bath of blazing aviation fuel?

And the Titanic is not a bad analogy. It's all about how "obvious" conclusions are not always the right ones. How about, instead of just bombarding us with rhetoric, personal invective, masses of ellipses . . . and shouts of "it's obvious", you inject a little reasoned argument into the discussion?

The controlled demolition argument is NOT obvious to many of us. Saying it is will not change that. Why don't you offer reasons for why it's the only reasonable explanation?

What was obvious to me was that building were going to fall, based upon nothing but my knowledge of structural engineering and the properties of heat.

[Regnad Kcin]

You forgot to post an image of some of the 47, 1300 foot steel core columns inside the core area at some elevation over the ground from the demo images. Do that soon please.You forgot to post an image of the Wal Mart superstore located at the center of the Earth.

[Regnad Kcin]

The only realistic explanation of the fall of the three WTC structures are a control demolition. You dont even need to read any expert ......it is all so evident. Three buildings falling down due to an open fire just dont cut it.
One added thought........Conspiracies are how criminals work....Criminals do not go around openly claiming what they are going to do........they work in secrecy, they hide things. Conspiracies are a normal part of human nature.
Most of the anti-conspiracy people are really not about the obvious but about a problem with their personalities. Some of them doubt that Operation Northwood ever existed or that it is just exageration, or that there really is a law that requires most people to pay income tax. Their kind of world is very restrictive. Be very careful with these people.I have been showing a whole lot of people the whole 9/11 argument, and have been observing personalities. I have seen many people make-up stuff on the fly without any evidence. I have seen people that want to argue without even knowing the basic facts of the day. Worse, i have seen people that would not even consider the idea that an alternative explanation could exist.
It is really obvious that there was somekind of controlled demolition - buildings do not collapse due to open fire --------- it is just utterly rediculous to even think that.
So i am mostly trying to understand these people that believe otherwise. People that believe the official version remind of christians..........no matter what evidence you bring forth they weasel their way out of it and go home more resolute about their beliefs than ever.
I am really curious what these people think of Operation Northwood............The Force is weak in this one.

[Regnad Kcin]

Let's stick wth the simple stuff.Excellent!

Which is heavier:

- 11 stories of WTC tower
- 25 stories of WTC tower

[chipmunk stew]

I am in awe that this thread is still so active. Perhaps we can get something useful out of it, like hook it up to the power grid or something.

[uruk]

Personaly I want to see it rollover to 10,000

Do fireworks go off? Or a building collapses?

[Powa]

I am in awe that this thread is still so active. Perhaps we can get something useful out of it, like hook it up to the power grid or something.
No, all the energy put into this thread gets sucked into the black hole that is Chris' brain. From it, nothing escapes but nonsense. Which must be made of antimatter. But I digress.

[JonnyFive]

Excellent!

Which is heavier:

- 11 stories of WTC tower
- 25 stories of WTC tower

Oh, he won't fall for that. He's too clever to answer that question.

Hey, Chris, which is heavier:

-25 pieces of delicious blueberry pie
-11 pieces of delicious blueberry pie

Assume the same weight per piece of pie.

[NobbyNobbs]

Welcome to the fora, se7ensnakes. I suggest that you state what YOU think of Operation Northwood so the rest of us can speak directly to your thoughts. Discussions on these here fora seem to go much better when specific, concrete ideas are being discussed rather than just, "what do you think" posts.

Is "fora" really the plural of "forum"? This thread actually Did teach me something....


[QUOTE=Christophera]
Do you have a reason to know about secret, self destruct policy? Can you document this?



No problem, can you understand an image of self destruction in action? (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)

Chris, I was referring to your claim about sub bases and missile silos. Why would you know about such secret things?

Obvious facts (from a series of 10,000):

4,786: The sun moves round the earth, or we'd all be flung off.
5,212: The earth can't be a sphere, or people would fall off the bottom.
6,094: When you swing a ball on a string round your head, there is a radial force pulling the ball away from you. When you cut the string, it will fly directly away from you.
7,703: Heavier objects fall faster than light ones.

#3,453: Solid objects are made mostly of solid stuff, not empty space.

See, this is the reason nobody takes you guys seriously. You go on and on about these dire conspiracies, and then you claim it's all "common sense" and you "don't even need to read any expert" (I assume you mean either "expert opinions" or "experts"). But there is a reason why we have people who study their whole lives in order to construct these buildings, rather than simply using "common sense."

There are areas where you need to show more diligence in terms of research and knowledge, especially complex technical subjects like structural engineering and architectural design. There is a lot of complicated math and physics involved, and "common sense" doesn't even scratch the surface.

Quick, I'll use an example from a totally different area of life. I underwrite state-mandated group disability insurance for a living, so I'll use an example I'm qualified to judge.

Using common sense, tell me how to determine a profitable rate for a group disability insurance policy given three years of premium, claims, and rate history. The business has changed insurance carriers several times, and has been with the current carrier less than six months. Assuming a low yearly premium (say, under $5,000 a year), what would you need to do, without mentioning specific numbers. Just give me a general idea of what kind of factors you would include in your calculations and decision-making process.

Only people who believe "common sense" is an acceptable methodology in solving technical problems are allowed to answer. Come on, this is not nearly as hard as structural engineering.

The answer is 42. It's obvious.

The concrte core was vital to the towers stability and safety.

Steel flexes WAY TOO MUCH in those proportions.

Steel is supposed to flex. I suspect that a concrete core wouldn't flex enough. But I could be wrong. Somebody check me? (See how that works, Christophera? You allow for the possibility that you may be mistaken. That way, when you find you are, you learn something instead of going mad and having your world collapse around you.)



Imagine the tower faces to the wind and those opposite. Do you know how a wing flies? It is not so much the pressure below holding the wing up. it is the low pressure above lifting, just tlike the sail on a boat.

Chris, Chris, Chris. Aerodynamics 101. The shape of the wing causes higher pressure underneath and lower pressure above the wing. The differential between the two causes lift. It is just as much the high pressure below as the low pressure above that causes this. To attribute it to one and not the other is being very selective in your argument (which logical fallacy this is, I forget, but it's similar to picking the trials that work and ignoring the rest.)

and so the steel core columns originally concieved of were rejected in favor of a steel reinforced, tubular, cast concrete core.

If steel flexes too much, and this is so well known, why would a world-famous architect come up with the idea in the first place?



All towers of the propostions of the twin towers have steel reinforced tubular cast concrete cores. The have to, otherswise they felx TOO MUCH like the Tacoma narrows bridge did.

First of all, it's been pointed out that not all towers have concrete cores. See the Sears Tower. Care to address your mistake here?

Secondly, it's also been pointed out that the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was a highly specialized case of the right design being in the wrong place. The wind in that valley set up a resonance with the beams in the bridge. The same design was used in the Golden Gate Bridge, which doesn't seem to have any problems at all. Care to address this point?



The conclusion is that you're an unschooled halfwit with a massive ego problem, who probably has to have help making sure the skidmarks are in the back of his underpants.



You owe me a new keyboard. I had to dry ice tea off of mine after reading this.


By the way, Christophera, if all these welders (and presumably firefighters, politicians, engineers, etc) are afraid to speak out, why is it that you are able to maintain a website and promote it so shamelessly over and over without retribution by the powers that be? If you can get away with it, don't you think that one welder might be able to speak up?

[hcmom]

Personaly I want to see it rollover to 10,000

Do fireworks go off? Or a building collapses?

Please, no, don't let it roll over to 10,000 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60694)! I have friends in there!

[A W Smith]

The huge welded plates that held the exterior columns together in threes are what resisted torsion and wind loading. Not the non existent concrete core. The core was all steel with two layers of 5/8 type X gypsum drywall on the core side of the fire walls with one layer of 5/8 type x on the exterior or office side of the fire walls. Also all concrete used in the towers was lightweight concrete with perlite, pumice, rotary fired shale and slag additives which weighs 90#-115# cu ft compared to 140#-150# cu ft. of conventional concrete. the difference being quite substantial when you are talking about adding approximatly 12 to 17 PSF of the designed 100 PSF live load capacity to the typical floor by removing the equivalent in dead load. Add up the total floor area and you factor in a cost savings in steel to support that reduced dead load alone.

[rwguinn]

The huge welded plates that held the exterior columns together in threes are what resisted torsion and wind loading. Not the non existent concrete core. The core was all steel with two layers of 5/8 type X gypsum drywall on the core side of the fire walls with one layer of 5/8 type x on the exterior or office side of the fire walls. Also all concrete used in the towers was lightweight concrete with perlite, pumice, rotary fired shale and slag additives which weighs 90#-115# cu ft compared to 140#-150# cu ft. of conventional concrete.

there you go, ruining it for everyone!:D

Who are you to come in here, making sense, and sounding like you know what you're talking about?:D

[Bell]

Chris, lookit here!
Sears Tower, higher than the Twin Towers.

Wot? No concrete?

http://www.die-wolkenkratzer.de/pics/sears-tower-02.jpg

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/BT/BSI/MOMENT_F/sears-2.jpg

[Regnad Kcin]

Why just look at the concrete core! (http://aboutfacts.net/LargePictures/Else21/Ground%20Zero.jpg)

(Thanks to Kent1 for the pic.)

[NickUK]

Why just look at the concrete core! (http://aboutfacts.net/LargePictures/Else21/Ground%20Zero.jpg)

(Thanks to Kent1 for the pic.)

blah blah massive box columns yadda yadda yadda elevator guide rail blah blah

[Bell]

Below are two pictures, looking at the core. The left is taken from the north, looking south. The right is taken from the west, looking east. You can pretty much look through the south tower in both pictures. And that is somewhere halfway up. There is NOTHING that suggest a concrete core is in there somewhere. A concrete core would have BLOCKED the view.

Ergo,

NO. CONCRETE. CORE.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4402&d=1165412673

[se7ensnakes]

wow jet fuel........that sounds so terrifying.....
jet-fuel.. pure concentrated jet fuel spilled all over the building causing a massive inferno that poverised anyone near it. This fierce inferno of jet fuel within the tower........wow.......no one made it out alive.........
Bell help me here.......
jet fuel must pack a wallop to be able to move something like a plane... Let me see..........
I think i am going to patent a welder around jet fuel
it is so potent......so...........well intense.
if jet fuel could twist and bend 5 inch high tensile steel columns .......why am i using an oxyacetylene rosebud to try and bend steel. All i need is to get a spray bottle and flood some jet fuel on the plates, ignite it, then i could simply bend it.
Darn Bell you are so brilliant........let me see..........
Hey I lit my kerosene lamp last night and guess what??? IT MELTED.......**** IT MELTED RIGHT BEFORE MY EYES.... and well................
OH NOOOO THE IRON GRATING ON MY FIREPLACE IS MELTING..........OH **** YOU GUYS ARE SO RIGHT ..........I 'VE GOT TO GO.........I GOT TO PUT OUT THE INFERNO BEFORE IT COLLAPSES MY HOUSEEE

[se7ensnakes]

Well that was interesting.........you seem to be a little touchy with facts concerning OPERATION NORTHWOOD, something there that bothers you.
Perhaps that is why you twist the facts concerning 9/11.......I got to think about this..........

[Christophera]

Chris, lookit here!
Sears Tower, higher than the Twin Towers.

Wot? No concrete?

http://www.die-wolkenkratzer.de/pics/sears-tower-02.jpg

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/BT/BSI/MOMENT_F/sears-2.jpg


Yes, and it is not the same proportions.

[Bell]

http://www1.union.edu/olneyg/projectfolder/project_files/image002.jpg

Also, don't forget to answer my other post.

[FramerDave]

Christopher, be a doll would you and have a look at this picture of the core right after the collapse: http://aboutfacts.net/LargePictures/Else21/Ground%20Zero.jpg

I'm afraid I'm having a devil of a time making out the concrete core. Would you be kind enough to point it out to me? Maybe some nice arrows or something?

Thanks so very much.

[beachnut]

wow jet fuel........that sounds so terrifying.....
jet-fuel.. pure concentrated jet fuel spilled all over the building causing a massive inferno that poverised anyone near it. This fierce inferno of jet fuel within the tower........wow.......no one made it out alive.........
Bell help me here.......
jet fuel must pack a wallop to be able to move something like a plane... Let me see..........
I think i am going to patent a welder around jet fuel
it is so potent......so...........well intense.
if jet fuel could twist and bend 5 inch high tensile steel columns .......why am i using an oxyacetylene rosebud to try and bend steel. All i need is to get a spray bottle and flood some jet fuel on the plates, ignite it, then i could simply bend it.
Darn Bell you are so brilliant........let me see..........
Hey I lit my kerosene lamp last night and guess what??? IT MELTED.......**** IT MELTED RIGHT BEFORE MY EYES.... and well................
OH NOOOO THE IRON GRATING ON MY FIREPLACE IS MELTING..........OH **** YOU GUYS ARE SO RIGHT ..........I 'VE GOT TO GO.........I GOT TO PUT OUT THE INFERNO BEFORE IT COLLAPSES MY HOUSEEE

Yes, only a dolt does not know the jet fuel was the equal in energy deliever as heat of 315 tons of TNT, no wonder a big fire started.

But your fire place may not bend much unless you bought a cheap one.

But you will need some numbers if you are going to make fun of jet fuel ace.

[Bell]

Troll. Don't feed.

[beachnut]

I have been showing a whole lot of people the whole 9/11 argument, and have been observing personalities. I have seen many people make-up stuff on the fly without any evidence. I have seen people that want to argue without even knowing the basic facts of the day. Worse, i have seen people that would not even consider the idea that an alternative explanation could exist.
It is really obvious that there was somekind of controlled demolition - buildings do not collapse due to open fire --------- it is just utterly rediculous to even think that.
So i am mostly trying to understand these people that believe otherwise. People that believe the official version remind of christians..........no matter what evidence you bring forth they weasel their way out of it and go home more resolute about their beliefs than ever.
I am really curious what these people think of Operation Northwood............

No there was no controlled demolition, and you have no proof. zip... (go take a lot of physics courses or become a mechanical engineer; hurry back see you in 6 years)

Only you and your CT buddies are not educated enough to understand the NIST report or make your own study! Go back to school.

Operation Northwood was developed my someone like you adn the CT dolts. It was not done because it was stupid! I suspect the guys were put out or dismissed! Funny, some people recognize real dumb ideas and do not do them. But then you did not read ONW or did you?

You need to read more about 9/11. You have missed something if you have joined the CT not so truthful movement.

Have you been in a coma for 5 years??

[Bell]

Christopher, you have had more than enough time to fabricate an answer to any of the following three posts. Care to answer them allready. I await your reply - to all three (3) of them.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2156927&postcount=9293
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2156343&postcount=9269
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2157758&postcount=9305

[beachnut]

I think that OPERATION NORTHWOOD is exemplary of some of what the government / private sector is capable of. Plant bombs in American cities, hurt american citizens, shoot missiles to cuban refugees floating on the water, all so that americans populace support a war. What else can i say.....it is very simple.
If Operation Northwood had indeed taken place, I could just see you people arguing that the plane over cuba was really full of students. Most of you anti-conspiracy people just dont think. You are really a danger to our freedom!

No Operations Northwood is the kind of stuff I expect the CT world would do it they were in charge! You guys are the only ones who think people would do it!

The operation was never done. Wow, the government has people who are not terminally stupid like the CT non truth movement like the Scholars for 9/11 truth or yourself.

[beachnut]

Well that was interesting.........you seem to be a little touchy with facts concerning OPERATION NORTHWOOD, something there that bothers you.
Perhaps that is why you twist the facts concerning 9/11.......I got to think about this..........

You must be a CT guy!

You need some guidance!

This thread is not about your open season on real evidence, this thread is about Operation Concrete Core! Get some info on the Concrete Core and join in!

The OCC is really a test of the forum engine and a place to catch trolls (like docker etal).


hi docker

[se7ensnakes]

Lets see......people were never able to get out alive because the fire was so intense ......it just pulverise everything. LISTEN YOU GUYS CHIEF ORIO PALMER NEVER MADE IT TO THE 78TH FLOOR......HE COULD NOT HAVE HE WOULD BEEN PULVERIZED LIKE THE MARTIAN DEATH RAY!!! Am with you guys......Chief Orio Palmer took off to the bahamas........the intense heat prevented him from going higher than the 50th floor. I tell you i am with you guys ........Orio Palmer is the bahamas........the audio tape is a lie.......thats why the government classified it.
and the people phoning from the upper floors of the south tower.......well that is all a lie......no one could live thru those temps. I am getting it now......am with you guys. The video of people around the impact sound.....that is also a lie........i did not see that ......am with you guys........the hot was too intense.......the floor were like an oven..........am with you guys ......where the hell is my tin foil cap!!!!

[Bell]

You must be a CT guy!

You need some guidance!

This thread is not about your open season on real evidence, this thread is about Operation Concrete Core! Get some info on the Concrete Core and join in!

The OCC is really a test of the forum engine and a place to catch trolls (like docker etal).


hi docker

Did I not tell you not to feed the troll? ;)

[beachnut]

oops

[se7ensnakes]

The joint chief of staff signed to operation northwood.....only the civilian government prevented its execution. Last time i checked .......the joint chief of staffs were pretty powerful people.
The question is..........how can the citIzenry protect himself from scrupulous government activity...
You guys are a manace to society and to my freedom........ I think that each and everyone of you who subvert the obvious........should check himself to a clinic. It will be for the common good of society.

[Redtail]

Yuengling lager is pretty good.:)

[se7ensnakes]

beachnut thanks for the approval......i am going to patent my jetfuel welder..........once again
thanks

[beachnut]

Yuengling lager is pretty good.:)

Yuengling Traditional Lager

so how good is it

can it dissolve the concrete core and stop people from being CT dolts?

[Christophera]

Below are two pictures, looking at the core. The left is taken from the north, looking south. The right is taken from the west, looking east. You can pretty much look through the south tower in both pictures. And that is somewhere halfway up. There is NOTHING that suggest a concrete core is in there somewhere. A concrete core would have BLOCKED the view.

Ergo,

NO. CONCRETE. CORE.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4402&d=1165412673

The view is partly blocked on the right side as if concrete forms are being built or the core, which was divided in 2 on the long axis by a central shear wall made into part of the cells by the floors, meaning the core could be built 1 side at a time.

The documentary was about WTC 1 so explaining what is going on in the right image of WTC 2 is not inherently easy. WTC core was very different having 2 hallways in each direction and from the other images of it under construction, I get the impression that the process of casting the combined cell/shearwall core was also quite different. Often, it appears, allowing more floors before requiring the core catch up. Certainly that would add speed to construction and we know WTC went faster. So that is probably what we are seeing

Since you have no reasonable explanation for the image of the WTC core, (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) it is not like my inability to completely explain your image actually says there was no concrete core.

Certainly there is no proof for the steel core columns in anything you have posted.


Below is an explanation of the hallways of WTC 2 looking to the south which matches the southward view you've posted.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4437&stc=1&d=1165549280

[beachnut]

No concrete core ever! You have zero proof. And you are the only concrete core guy around. You are one in over 3 billion people. You are so unique, we think you need glasses. That is me and my mouse opinion.

Glasses, get some soon!

[Christophera]

The huge welded plates that held the exterior columns together in threes are what resisted torsion and wind loading. Not the non existent concrete core. The core was all steel with two layers of 5/8 type X gypsum drywall on the core side of the fire walls with one layer of 5/8 type x on the exterior or office side of the fire walls. Also all concrete used in the towers was lightweight concrete with perlite, pumice, rotary fired shale and slag additives which weighs 90#-115# cu ft compared to 140#-150# cu ft. of conventional concrete. the difference being quite substantial when you are talking about adding approximatly 12 to 17 PSF of the designed 100 PSF live load capacity to the typical floor by removing the equivalent in dead load. Add up the total floor area and you factor in a cost savings in steel to support that reduced dead load alone.

Horizontal plates AND perimeter box columns resisted torosion to a degree, but over the height of the tower there was too much flex. Most importantly steel core columns added no resistence to torsion.

As far as concrete in th floors I found posted on a message board a copy of the concrete schedule. All but 10 floors are lightweight concrete.

The core was also but the engineers for the rest of the building were not in charge of the concrete core. The image of WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG), at the top, I think shows perhaps the 43 floor level in the core.

Floors 41, 42, & 43 are stone concrete and the core was very heavily reinforced with inner wall for part of it as the largest lift motors for the elevators were housed there.


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4439&stc=1&d=1165552757

[mortimer]

Since you have no reasonable explanation for the image of the WTC core, (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) it is not like my inability to completely explain your image actually says there was no concrete core.

Chris,

Please stop and read back to yourself what you just wrote. Imagine one of us saying the same thing. Since you have no reasonable explanation for our images of the core, it is not like our inability to completely explain your one image actually says there was a concrete core. Agreed?

[SezMe]

Is "fora" really the plural of "forum"? This thread actually Did teach me something....
Both fora and forums are acceptable but using fora makes me sound oh so much more sophisticated, doncha think?

[SezMe]

Lets see......people were never able to get out alive because the fire was so intense ......it just pulverise everything. LISTEN YOU GUYS CHIEF ORIO PALMER NEVER MADE IT TO THE 78TH FLOOR......HE COULD NOT HAVE HE WOULD BEEN PULVERIZED LIKE THE MARTIAN DEATH RAY!!! Am with you guys......Chief Orio Palmer took off to the bahamas........the intense heat prevented him from going higher than the 50th floor. I tell you i am with you guys ........Orio Palmer is the bahamas........the audio tape is a lie.......thats why the government classified it.
and the people phoning from the upper floors of the south tower.......well that is all a lie......no one could live thru those temps. I am getting it now......am with you guys. The video of people around the impact sound.....that is also a lie........i did not see that ......am with you guys........the hot was too intense.......the floor were like an oven..........am with you guys ......where the hell is my tin foil cap!!!!
I think se7ensnakes is DeBunks sock.

[Christophera]

Chris,

Please stop and read back to yourself what you just wrote. Imagine one of us saying the same thing. Since you have no reasonable explanation for our images of the core, it is not like our inability to completely explain your one image actually says there was a concrete core. Agreed?

I don't have to imagine, you've said it all, but you also have no raw evidence.

If the steel core columns are never seen as the towers come apart but what can only be concrete is seen, your inability to explain what appears as concrete in any reasonable fashion indicates that the steel columns never existed.

[Christophera]

No concrete core ever! You have zero proof. And you are the only concrete core guy around. You are one in over 3 billion people. You are so unique, we think you need glasses. That is me and my mouse opinion.

Glasses, get some soon!

I not only have proof, it is from raw evidence and there is an entire website built from it. You cannot say so much for the supposed steel core core columns.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

[beachnut]

I don't have to imagine, you've said it all, but you also have no raw evidence.

If the steel core columns are never seen as the towers come apart but what can only be concrete is seen, your inability to explain what appears as concrete in any reasonable fashion indicates that the steel columns never existed.

Hundreds of photos of the steel core! you are just blind, get glasses soon

[Mobyseven]

The fact that you identify with a proven fallacy makes your evaluation meaningless.

If the fallacy is not proven, then show us images of steel core columns exposed during the demise of the towers.

You've got that back to front there. The burden of proof is on you to make your case, not us.

You are going to require more than just speculation and pictures to make your case too. To try a different tact here, I'm going to do a little demonstration:http://www.goldcircle.co.za/Gallery/KEN050618/original/R7Winter%20Derby%20Gr3.jpg

What is happening in this picture?

Just by looking at this photo, can you give a full account of the race that preceded it? And what happened after?

[Christophera]

Hundreds of photos of the steel core! you are just blind, get glasses soon

I noticed you didn't post one.

Here is what can only be concrete, 500 feet off teh ground. A concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif).

You have hundreds of construction photos to attempt misinterpretations of, and that is IT.

Nothing you have explains how these Sheared Columns (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg)

[Christophera]

You've got that back to front there. The burden of proof is on you to make your case, not us.

You are going to require more than just speculation and pictures to make your case too. To try a different tact here, I'm going to do a little demonstration:http://www.goldcircle.co.za/Gallery/KEN050618/original/R7Winter%20Derby%20Gr3.jpg

What is happening in this picture?

Just by looking at this photo, can you give a full account of the race that preceded it? And what happened after?

The offical story would explainthe photo as a sculpture, static and frozen in whatever way they would want you to believe.

You are a joke.

The official story explains nothing and has no proof. I have raw evidence and I do (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) explain near free fall and pulverization.

An explanation IS the whole story.

[Christophera]

Lets see......people were never able to get out alive because the fire was so intense ......it just pulverise everything. LISTEN YOU GUYS CHIEF ORIO PALMER NEVER MADE IT TO THE 78TH FLOOR......HE COULD NOT HAVE HE WOULD BEEN PULVERIZED LIKE THE MARTIAN DEATH RAY!!! Am with you guys......Chief Orio Palmer took off to the bahamas........the intense heat prevented him from going higher than the 50th floor. I tell you i am with you guys ........Orio Palmer is the bahamas........the audio tape is a lie.......thats why the government classified it.
and the people phoning from the upper floors of the south tower.......well that is all a lie......no one could live thru those temps. I am getting it now......am with you guys. The video of people around the impact sound.....that is also a lie........i did not see that ......am with you guys........the hot was too intense.......the floor were like an oven..........am with you guys ......where the hell is my tin foil cap!!!!

se7ensnakes,

You've got it!

That is why they all think alike and pay no attention to raw evidence, they are all tuned to the same channel with their silvery cranial antennas.

[beachnut]

I noticed you didn't post one.

Here is what can only be concrete, 500 feet off teh ground. A concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif).

You have hundreds of construction photos to attempt misinterpretations of, and that is IT.

Nothing you have explains how these Sheared Columns (http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc066.jpg)

I have used your photos to show everyone the steel Core

I use you photos of the WTC to prove the core is steel!

Your photos prove the core is only steel!

I USE you photos at your web site!

Thank you for proving to everyone the core is made of steel.

I have seen hundreds of photos and we have shown you many times, but you are too blind to see. Get some glasses and look at the tons of photos in the thousands of posts we have made.

I knew you were not looking at our photos we posted; we posted many!!!

You do not like to look at our photos. I use you photo to prove there is no concrete core. THANKS again for showing me there is no concrete core.

[beachnut]

I not only have proof, it is from raw evidence and there is an entire website built from it. You cannot say so much for the supposed steel core core columns.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

Sorry that photo is the one I use to prove the core is not concrete!

I use you photos to prove a steel core. THank you

You have made a big error. Better get your eyes checked.

Thanks again but your web site proves there is just a steel core.

[A W Smith]

from a url I cant post yet
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings’ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.


civil.usvd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

[beachnut]

from a url I cant post yet

civil.usvd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

I saw that here too;


Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.

http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm

http://alanjones.us/pages/wtc_pic.htm

http://www.ipwea.org.au/papers/download/galea.pdf

and the last one talks in regular language about why, in real terms, the towers fell

Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings’ high speed
elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution
using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core
• The structural system is impressively simple.
• The 60m wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice
o columns on 1m centres acting as wind bracing to resist all
overturning forces;
o the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building.
o The floors tie the system together to stop the outer walls from
buckling
Why Did It Collapse?
• Initial plane impacts - structures had been severely damaged, but not
necessarily fatally.
• Impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter
columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire
system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.
• The heat from the fire raging in the upper floors, gradually affecting the
behaviour of the remaining material.
• The fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel,
which then ignited the combustible material in the building
• The fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the
strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while
the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), and increasing
deflections.
• Normally safety features such as fire retarding materials and sprinkler
systems help to contain fires, and prevent steel from being exposed to
excessively high temperatures.
• This gives occupants time to escape and allow fire fighters to extinguish
blazes, before the building is catastrophically damaged.
• The unusual circumstances – i.e. large volumes of jet fuel, fire retarding
coatings blown off during impact, water supply to fire sprinklers severed
were conditions which hugely accelerated the buckling of the outer wall
columns
• The storey at impact level would have collapsed. Remember that the
collapsing floor was supporting 20 or more floors above
• The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the
structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire
structure.
• The dynamic load of 20 storeys above is very much greater than the static
system, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor
progressively "pancaked" to the ground.


But you can use the only concrete core guy's own web pages and photos to show a steel only core!

[Mobyseven]

The offical story would explainthe photo as a sculpture, static and frozen in whatever way they would want you to believe.

You are a joke.

The official story explains nothing and has no proof. I have raw evidence and I do (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) explain near free fall and pulverization.

An explanation IS the whole story.

Explain exactly what is happening in the picture or shutup.

This is analogous to what you are trying to do with your 9/11 conspiracy. You are analysing photographs with no supporting evidence, and presenting your findings as unfalsifyable gospel.

[tsig]

se7ensnakes,

You've got it!

That is why they all think alike and pay no attention to raw evidence, they are all tuned to the same channel with their silvery cranial antennas.

Chris you have never been on a construction site.

Have you ever held a tool?

Do you know what a job is?

[mortimer]

I don't have to imagine, you've said it all, but you also have no raw evidence.

If the steel core columns are never seen as the towers come apart but what can only be concrete is seen, your inability to explain what appears as concrete in any reasonable fashion indicates that the steel columns never existed.

Chris,

We have more "raw" evidence than you do. You have one photo. We have dozens. Your inability to explain what appears to be steel core and the absence of a concrete core in construction photos indicates that the concrete core never existed.

[Bell]

The view is partly blocked on the right side as if concrete forms are being built or the core, which was divided in 2 on the long axis by a central shear wall made into part of the cells by the floors, meaning the core could be built 1 side at a time.

So now the concrete core is still under construction, some 40 (estimate) floors behind the top of the building.

The documentary was about WTC 1 so explaining what is going on in the right image of WTC 2 is not inherently easy.

For you, nothing is inherently easy. But if the alleged documentary (for which you have no proof) only showed WTC1, then you have no proof of special coating in the core of WTC2.

WTC core was very different having 2 hallways in each direction and from the other images of it under construction, I get the impression that the process of casting the combined cell/shearwall core was also quite different. Often, it appears, allowing more floors before requiring the core catch up. Certainly that would add speed to construction and we know WTC went faster. So that is probably what we are seeing

So the tower stood without a concrete core. Only then they built the concrete core because...?

Since you have no reasonable explanation for the image of the <spam> WTC core, it is not like my inability to completely explain your image actually says there was no concrete core.

Certainly there is no proof for the steel core columns in anything you have posted.


Below is an explanation of the hallways of WTC 2 looking to the south which matches the southward view you've posted.

<spam>

Emphasis added throughout your post. You are one very unsecure person, Chris. And you are wrong.

WOT? NO CONCRETE?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4402&d=1165412673

[uruk]

Chris still hasen't been able to reconcile the the age discrepancy of the Mohawk story or been able to show the concrete core being built ahead of the steel work as described by Tony Jebson.
He's ignoring these facts because they show him to be wrong. His type of dilusion wont allow him to admit to being wrong because it would introduce self doubt.

[Belz...]

I see no columns in the core.

I see no "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" in the core area.

That's the blood in your avatar's eyes.

There is CLEARLY diagonal bracing in those three pictures. That is what you asked for. Diagonal bracing. Stop with the lie, you make baby Jezus cry.

Yes, cry tears of blood.

They were built despite this public rejection. The things our government has been doing just don't make sense. That we pay for it makes less sense.

Isn't it ALWAYS the taxpayers who pay ?

You are truly a common sense individual with respect for reason.

Those are mutually exclusive.

Yamasaki abandoned the steel core columns and utilized the steel reinforced cast concrete core as it handed lateral displacements better and dealt very well with the torsion issue.

If he's still alive you might want to ask him.

The cross supports you indicate are a part of the crane platform.

REALLY ? Then what are they doing right outside of it ?

Prove it.

http://images.wisconsinhistory.org/w...99004225-l.jpg

Elevator guide rail support steel.

Using Uruk's own photo doesn't PROVE anything.

Gosh, you really think pictures are the end-all of all arguments, don't you ?

Here is a totally unexplainable event without demolitions

Argument from incredulity noted.

All your images are over 4 floors and the steel surrounded the concrete core after that.

Hint: you can see through the spaces in BETWEEN the steel.

You need to show the diagonal braces of the interior box columns from the demo images.

Goalpost moving at its finest. Wasn't it YOU who asked proof from the construction images ? Now we have to limit ourselves to the DESTRUCTION, where no bracing could've survived ?

Now you're plain dishonest.

[Belz...]

The only realistic explanation of the fall of the three WTC structures are a control demolition. You dont even need to read any expert ......it is all so evident. Three buildings falling down due to an open fire just dont cut it.

Yes, who needs experts when you can just use your ignorance as a bludgeon ?

[Bell]

If he's still alive you might want to ask him.

Alas, he's not. But I'm sure Chris can contact him ala Sylvia Browne. He's of such high intelligence and has supernatural powers :hypnodisk :hypnodisk

[JonnyFive]

The answer is 42. It's obvious.


Damn, you figured us out. We sit around drinking coffee and laughing all day, and everyone's rate is 42!

I love my job.


Yes, and it is not the same proportions.

I must be psychic, because I had this feeling that you would say that. Exactly what is so critical about the proportions of the twin towers that they needed a concrete core?

The Sears Tower is even higher and is not dramatically thicker, so how come a steel core is good for that, but not the twin towers?

I made up a song, just for that:

"Oh, there's no pleading like special pleading it's the happiest pleading in the land... there's no pleading like special pleading so won't you take my hand?"

Sung roughly to the tune of the "There's no Canada like French Canada" song in South Park.

[se7ensnakes]

I dont argue with denials on the facts.........because no matter what you say.....it wont sink in......
For example, I never argue with a christian fundamentalist about bible fallacy because it just dont work. However, if i noticed that there is an individual that is actually is sincere about the topic, where I could learn from him/her or he could learn from me...that person I will debate. But i have listened to the total made up ******** in this forum to know that i will be wasting my time.

[Powa]

se7ensnakes, why don't you post your theory of what happened on 9/11 and then we can debate.

[uruk]

Chris still hasen't been able to reconcile the the age discrepancy of the Mohawk story or been able to show the concrete core being built ahead of the steel work as described by Tony Jebson.
He's ignoring these facts because they show him to be wrong. His type of dilusion wont allow him to admit to being wrong because it would introduce self doubt.

Sorry to quote myself but I forgot to add something before the edit time was up.

Not to mention his blatant, contrarian denial of the diagnol bracing of the columns.

It's like holding a ball infront of someone eyes and they deny the ball being there. It's absolutly childish and immature.

[uruk]

I dont argue with denials on the facts.........because no matter what you say.....it wont sink in......
For example, I never argue with a christian fundamentalist about bible fallacy because it just dont work. However, if i noticed that there is an individual that is actually is sincere about the topic, where I could learn from him/her or he could learn from me...that person I will debate. But i have listened to the total made up ******** in this forum to know that i will be wasting my time.

Then why are you wasting your time here?

Your obviousely a joker or a troll, otherwise the alternative is that you are ignorant and you have no idea what you're pratteling on about and too lazey to research your own claims enough to debate it here.

So which is it? So far all you have done is to make unsubstatiated claims. Simply mouthing off for no reason simply makes you a jacka$$.
Say something meaningfull and put your money where your mouth is or go back to playing your Playstation 3

[beachnut]

I dont argue with denials on the facts.........because no matter what you say.....it wont sink in......
For example, I never argue with a christian fundamentalist about bible fallacy because it just dont work. However, if i noticed that there is an individual that is actually is sincere about the topic, where I could learn from him/her or he could learn from me...that person I will debate. But i have listened to the total made up ******** in this forum to know that i will be wasting my time.

You have no facts, you can not argue, and you do not know the difference between faith and facts. You are the one using you faith in the cult of 9/11 non truth and you think you have logic and facts; you have failed.

You are not wasting your time, you are a waste of time.

You have problems with logic, having real facts, and the ability to research 9/11.

[Christophera]

I have used your photos to show everyone the steel Core

I use you photos of the WTC to prove the core is steel!

Curious, I just noticed again you did not post any images of the supposed steel core columns. If you continue to try to assert with text that you have images available which show the steel core columns but do not use them, you loose credibility.

Use images from the demolition showing some of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel columns inthe creo area at an elevation above the ground.

I have a number of images which show what can only bee concrete. There is, for example, a quality image of the top of WTC 2 showing the concrete core inside the perimeter columns about to crash into the top of WTC 3. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg)

[Christophera]

Exactly what is so critical about the proportions of the twin towers that they needed a concrete core?


I've said numerous times. The twin towers were narrow and very tall. If I have to explain that to you, ................ clearly you are not capable of logical discussion on the matter.

[Bell]

Curious, I just noticed again you did not post any images of the supposed steel core columns. If you continue to try to assert with text that you have images available which show the steel core columns but do not use them, you loose credibility.

Use images from the demolition showing some of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel columns inthe creo area at an elevation above the ground.

I have a number of images which show what can only bee concrete. There is, for example, a quality image of the <spam> top of WTC 2 showing the concrete core inside the perimeter columns about to crash into the top of WTC 3.

Please provide us with...

- Raw evidence of the PBS documentary
- Raw evidence of the C4
- Raw evidence of the planes hitting the wrong towers

... just for starters.

Raw evidence IS NOT your assumptions or conclusions. We are awaiting your reply.

[Arus808]

Chris still hasen't been able to reconcile the the age discrepancy of the Mohawk story or been able to show the concrete core being built ahead of the steel work as described by Tony Jebson.
He's ignoring these facts because they show him to be wrong. His type of dilusion wont allow him to admit to being wrong because it would introduce self doubt.

that's nothing new.
he still hasn't explained how he claims it was C4 that was used to coat the rebar, when C-4 wasn't a term that was used back when the building were being built.

[Belz...]

Let's stick wth the simple stuff.

Ah, yes. The simple stuff.

The demo scenario I've assembled is for the experts, and they are terrified or paid off.

What, because they disagree with your common sense ?

I've been asking for a site that simply substantiates the FEMA core of 47, 1300 foot columns, for over six months now. I mean there are 4 different floor plans, no structural plans showing how the supposed core columns were connected or braced, nothing on this falacious structure.

Except all those pictures and videos you keep ignoring. Well, you don't ignore those YOU provide, or the video no one ELSE saw.

Sure, .......... there have been many attempts to pass off misinterpretations of construction images as "core columns", but if there were steel core columns, they would be easy to see in the images of the towers coming down, but they never are.

No, Adamantium is too expensive for high-rise skyscraper construction.

Wow, a breath of fresh air. Simple logic, how refreshing, dynamic even. reaching to human nature, psychology and simple sociology.

Translation for the non-chris speaking: "Wow, he agrees with me."

The charge is designed so that the metal in the inside of the V-shape is converted to a hot vaporized metal gas that does the actual cutting. Explosive coated the outside of a cylinder would not have the same effect since it completely surrounds the cylinder. It might vaporize the rebar, but then there would not be any rebar left to be photographed. So if that is the case the picture you keep saying is a picture of rebar would be incorrectly interpreted.

So your rebar can't possibly BE rebar unless your theory is wrong.

Isn't reality annoying, like that ?

[Belz...]

conspiracies are normal

Not conspiracies that involve thousands of people in highly risky, dare I say insane operations, and NONE of which speak out, ever, about killing thousands.

No, these conspiracies are NOT normal, and neither are those positing their existence.

It is really obvious that there was somekind of controlled demolition - buildings do not collapse due to open fire --------- it is just utterly rediculous to even think that.

Never ? Ever ? Ever, ever, ever ?

You might want to check that one.

So i am mostly trying to understand these people that believe otherwise. People that believe the official version remind of christians..........no matter what evidence you bring forth they weasel their way out of it and go home more resolute about their beliefs than ever.

CTers remind me of christians, too. The way they invent evidence that doesn't exist in order to support their own pre-conceived notions.

I am really curious what these people think of Operation Northwood............

The same thing they thought the last 1000 times someone asked.

I plainly said that it the control demolition is obvious and for that you dont need an expert...........like a ship that has sunk, you dont need an expert to tell you it has sunk.

No, but you might need one to tell you why.

[Christophera]

Christopher, be a doll would you and have a look at this picture of the core right after the collapse: http://aboutfacts.net/LargePictures/Else21/Ground%20Zero.jpg

I'm afraid I'm having a devil of a time making out the concrete core. Would you be kind enough to point it out to me? Maybe some nice arrows or something?

Thanks so very much.

Not much to see. Most of the concrete has been blown up. And the interior box columns have all been cut. Of course the supposed steel core columns are not to be seen int he core area.

The left core structure has a large segment of perimeter column leaning against it. Near the center of it is a gap which is lower having a 3 pieces of perimeter box columns on the left bent back to the left being near vertical. There also are 3 perimeter box columns on the right which are striaght and part of the leaning wall.

Between them is a horizontal edge that has vertical line on it which could easily be the top of the joint between the base of the concrete core and the major shear wall extending upward.

For more images of the concrete core see,

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

[Belz...]

Do you do logic? Can you accept logic?

Yes, and logic trumps common sense.

[Belz...]

Hey listen forks, adherents of this anti-conspiracy forum, you guys really got to think.

We do. That's why we reject your crap theory.

When i stated obvious facts

A pre-conceived conclusion cannot be used as evidence to support itself.

, i stated it in regards to the many buildings that have burned around the world, I have yet to see a total collapse of three buildings due to fire.

You might have missed the giant airplanes that crashed into them, first.

You guys are not thinking, you are just posting without any regards to somekind of intelligent conversation.

Argument from disagreement. Does such a fallacy exist ? It should.

[Belz...]

The twin towers moved slightly in the wind, 3 to 7 feet at the top was acceptable and within design.

How did the concrete flex ?

and so accuse me of lying in order to protect the lie you want to believe instead of the truth because you do not want to know the truth?

No.

The offical story would explainthe photo as a sculpture, static and frozen in whatever way they would want you to believe.

You are a joke.

No, you're the one who's trying to take a snapshot and making it the whole event.

[Belz...]

wow jet fuel........that sounds so terrifying.....
jet-fuel.. pure concentrated jet fuel spilled all over the building causing a massive inferno that poverised anyone near it. This fierce inferno of jet fuel within the tower........wow.......no one made it out alive.........
Bell help me here.......

Help you with your grammar, you mean ?

if jet fuel could twist and bend 5 inch high tensile steel columns .......why am i using an oxyacetylene rosebud to try and bend steel. All i need is to get a spray bottle and flood some jet fuel on the plates, ignite it, then i could simply bend it.

The idiocy of this man amazes me.

Do you hold a world record, or something ?

Darn Bell you are so brilliant........let me see..........
Hey I lit my kerosene lamp last night and guess what??? IT MELTED.......**** IT MELTED RIGHT BEFORE MY EYES.... and well................
OH NOOOO THE IRON GRATING ON MY FIREPLACE IS MELTING..........OH **** YOU GUYS ARE SO RIGHT ..........I 'VE GOT TO GO.........I GOT TO PUT OUT THE INFERNO BEFORE IT COLLAPSES MY HOUSEEE

And exactly how would your demolition MELT the same things ?

people were never able to get out alive because the fire was so intense ......it just pulverise everything.

No one ever said that. How's that army of strawmen you're building ?

LISTEN YOU GUYS CHIEF ORIO PALMER NEVER MADE IT TO THE 78TH FLOOR......HE COULD NOT HAVE HE WOULD BEEN PULVERIZED LIKE THE MARTIAN DEATH RAY!!!

78th... so he was UNDER the main pocket of fire ? What does that tell YOU ?

where the hell is my tin foil cap!!!!

Still on your head, methinks.

I dont argue with denials on the facts.........because no matter what you say.....it wont sink in......

Isn't it frustrating when the other kids won't play make-believe with you ?

[Belz...]

Not much to see. Most of the concrete has been blown up. And the interior box columns have all been cut. Of course the supposed steel core columns are not to be seen int he core area.

And yet, somehow, you expect the cross-bracing the survive that ?

[jhunter1163]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16109274/

Just some food for thought.

[Christophera]

You might have missed the giant airplanes that crashed into them, first.

If the planes were going to take them down it would have happened immediately.

The fires will not burn hot enough to cause continued failures adequate. Besides, you know very well the towers had a cast concrete core. A tructure not effected by fire like steel, if the fires could burn hot enough which they cannot. HERE is the only plausible explanaton for the Demolition (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) event.

When the towers did fall, the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions compared to the aircraft damage you cite.

Below is the top of WTC 1 falling to the south. All the damage, around 1/2 the perimeter columns were severed on the NORTH side. Only demolition could cause this toppling to the south.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4448&stc=1&d=1165600923

[JonnyFive]

I've said numerous times. The twin towers were narrow and very tall.

Yeah, I know that. I lived in New York before they were destroyed, I lived in New York while they were destroyed, and I'm quite familiar with the shape of the towers.

However, the Sears Tower, an even taller building which is just as narrow, does not have a concrete core. You are dodging my question (and also answering it with lies, which is just as bad): Why does the Sears Tower not require a concrete core but the Twin Towers absolutely must have one?

You can't say it's because it isn't as tall as the towers, because that isn't true. You also can't say it isn't as proportionally narrow, because that isn't true either. It's not like the Sears tower is a two mile wide monolith that requires no structural support.

I think that you, as always, don't have a real answer. The fact that the Sears Tower is a steel tube construction proves that it is possible to build a very tall, narrow building without a concrete core. That means that it was possible to build the WTC Towers without a concrete core, and you're left with the same few images you have had all along.

No construction photos.

No documentary.

No workers to back you up.

No engineers to back you up.

None of the designers to back up your claim.

No verified sources stating there was a concrete core.


All you have are some pictures from a dynamic situation that you claim obviously show controlled demolition and concrete core.

Why are you so obsessed with pictures from the collapse? By definition, that is an extremely volatile situation where one would not expect to find intact materials. It is not an optimal situation to see things, but I think that works to your advantage. Anytime anyone points out a flaw in your "obvious" interpretation of these pictures, you insult them and ignore their questions.

Also, you seem to like avoiding questions requiring real proof.

So, how about those "non-union workers"? Know what a project labor agreement is? Know any more about security clearance procedures or purposes? I guess the conspiracy sites don't cover that.


If I have to explain that to you, ................ clearly you are not capable of logical discussion on the matter.

And again with the personal stuff. You can't leave that alone, can you? Anyone that disagrees isn't just wrong, they're stupid too? Your position is so obvious that only an idiot wouldn't get it, right? Whatever, it's not hurting me any, but it makes you look like you're backed into a corner.

[Christophera]

How did the concrete flex ?


Steel reinforced concrete flexes to a degree. Examine the Tacoma narrows bridge video. With loads and wind forces, the steel reinforced concrete tube will flex slightly. This is not rocket science.

[Christophera]

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/BT/BSI/MOMENT_F/sears-2.jpg

However, the Sears Tower, an even taller building which is just as narrow, does not have a concrete core.

You are destroying your credibility with repeated erroneous statements. Not only is it not the same dimensions it has wing extensions that brace it.

[uruk]

If the planes were going to take them down it would have happened immediately. Please explain how that would have happened

The fires will not burn hot enough to cause continued failures adequate. Besides, you know very well the towers had a cast concrete core. A tructure not effected by fire like steel, if the fires could burn hot enough which they cannot. Your whole line of reasoning here depends on the there being a concrete core of which you are only assuming. You have not, in any way, proven there was a concrete core. Your website is just conjecture, mistaken accounts, and bad photography. In fact it is the ONLY source that claims a concrete core. That means that it's premise is UNSUPPORTED.
And if you are construction guru that you claim to be you would know that steel looses half it strength at 600 degrees. That would mean the that the steel would no longer be able to support the wieght it was to designed to carry.

When the towers did fall, the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions compared to the aircraft damage you cite.

Below is the top of WTC 1 falling to the south. All the damage, around 1/2 the perimeter columns were severed on the NORTH side. Only demolition could cause this toppling to the south.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4448&stc=1&d=1165600923

Are you sure you got your directions right? You were confused a few posts back.

[uruk]

Chris your still ignoring these two little items.
What's the matter? They scare you?

Chris still hasen't been able to reconcile the the age discrepancy of the Mohawk story or been able to show the concrete core being built ahead of the steel work as described by Tony Jebson.


Show me a picture of the thw WTC1 concrete core being built ahead of the steel structure just like Tony Jebson said he saw.

Come on now. I showed you a picture taken from street level of the WTC1 tower steel structure going up without a concrete core.
Come on prove me wrong. Show me that Tony Jebson was right.

[uruk]

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/BT/BSI/MOMENT_F/sears-2.jpg



You are destroying your credibility with repeated erroneous statements. Not only is it not the same dimensions it has wing extensions that brace it.

And yet it does not have a concrete core. Your evading chris.

Oh why won't Chris be a man and fess up? He's making the Virgin Mary cry blood with his lies.

[A W Smith]

Oh so the Tacoma narrows bridge was made of concrete now? That my friend is a suspension bridge with a plate girder framed deck. Maybe I can make this clear to you by calling my ex father in law who is a retired staff civil engineer for the Port Of New York Authority. He lost co-workers in that tragedy. I am reluctant to call him as he is in ill health. But you would only spout such disrespect for him as he was 'paid by the government" and I wont heap that upon him. Even though it is text that he will never have to read. Have you even been to WTC when it existed? Are you even old enough to have been around when they were constructed? I was. I watched them grow. Your outrageous claims can only convince me that you are simply a disinformation agent for info wars. just to keep pumping enough bull**** out into the web to obfuscate the truth. You know yourself that it is all lies. Its only purpose is to flood out common sense in a "pyroclastic flow" of hot fecal matter nonsense. In this thread you have been proved wrong time and time again. You ignore that you have obviously lost. All the work you have put into your web site is wrong and you know it. but you cant admit that you are a fool so you must always have the last post in a thread just to reiterate your nonsense hoping no one reads the previous posts.

[JonnyFive]

If the planes were going to take them down it would have happened immediately.

The fires will not burn hot enough to cause continued failures adequate. Besides, you know very well the towers had a cast concrete core. A tructure not effected by fire like steel, if the fires could burn hot enough which they cannot.

Wow, we're almost getting somewhere with the "what do you think should have happened thing"...

So, you think, assuming it was just a plane crash, that the towers should have immediately collapsed. What else? Which direction should they have fallen? What would the rubble look like?

[JonnyFive]

You are destroying your credibility with repeated erroneous statements. Not only is it not the same dimensions it has wing extensions that brace it.

What erroneous statements have I made? Please correct them with cited sources and not your own word, which carries no weight here. Unless you are a structural engineer with experience in skyscraper design, but you have already stated that you are not.

But it is considerably taller than the towers, and it is still a very narrow building.

I suppose your argument is that the towers crossed some key threshhold where they must have a concrete core.

Prove it. Cite sources other than yourself and "common sense". Link us to some engineering web sites or articles discussing the need for a concrete core in a building of those dimensions.

If this is such common knowledge, then how come you're the only one who believes it? Why don't any engineers or architects agree with you?

[tsig]

I've said numerous times. The twin towers were narrow and very tall. If I have to explain that to you, ................ clearly you are not capable of logical discussion on the matter.

The towers were narrow and tall sounds like a bomb.

Logical thought left the building at the sounds of the bombs.

Did you not get the memo?

[tsig]

Curious, I just noticed again you did not post any images of the supposed steel core columns. If you continue to try to assert with text that you have images available which show the steel core columns but do not use them, you loose credibility.

Use images from the demolition showing some of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel columns inthe creo area at an elevation above the ground.

I have a number of images which show what can only bee concrete. There is, for example, a quality image of the top of WTC 2 showing the concrete core inside the perimeter columns about to crash into the top of WTC 3. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg)


Do you always cry when you lie?

[Dave_46]

If the planes were going to take them down it would have happened immediately.

The fires will not burn hot enough to cause continued failures adequate.
<snip>

Folks. This shows us that he knows **** all about the action of fire.

(I think I've interpreted that sentence of his correctly)

[TellyKNeasuss]

The view is partly blocked on the right side as if concrete forms are being built or the core, which was divided in 2 on the long axis by a central shear wall made into part of the cells by the floors, meaning the core could be built 1 side at a time.

You are now claiming that the building was completely built and all after that was the core built. This completely contradicts what you said earlier.

The documentary was about WTC 1 so explaining what is going on in the right image of WTC 2 is not inherently easy. WTC core was very different having 2 hallways in each direction and from the other images of it under construction, I get the impression that the process of casting the combined cell/shearwall core was also quite different. Often, it appears, allowing more floors before requiring the core catch up. Certainly that would add speed to construction and we know WTC went faster. So that is probably what we are seeingWho made this documentary? If you remember the exact details of everything in it, then you must remember the names of some of the people involved.

Since you have no reasonable explanation for the image of the WTC core, (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) it is not like my inability to completely explain your image actually says there was no concrete core.What proof have you offered that it is 17 foot thick concrete? I say that it isn't. Prove that I'm wrong.

Certainly there is no proof for the steel core columns in anything you have posted.I guess only pictures in which the details are obscured by smoke and dust count as proof in your opinion.

Below is an explanation of the hallways of WTC 2 looking to the south which matches the southward view you've posted.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4437&stc=1&d=1165549280Why aren't these features apparent in the floors above where you've drawn lines? Why is what you claim to be the core not centered in the building?

[JonnyFive]

What about the mechanical rooms and the "thinner walls", Chris? You made a claim, I showed you counter evidence. Got any proof there was only one mechanical floor and that the walls got thinner?

[bonavada]

Originally Posted by Christophera
From LetsRollForums (http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15600&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=e059854b9b9534bc401a2ff80c9762e5)
I interviewed a Mohawk who was 24 when the towers were built. He couldn't say he remembered the concrete core. But he did remember they could only go 7 floors over the core with steel. He still had 2 friends that worked with him on the towers that were living. I asked him to speak with them about the core to see if they could revive each others memory.
When I explained that the FEMA said it was made with steel core columns, he became afraid. He was 64 years of age at that time. I could try him again. Maybe the fact I'm stilll alive will encourage him.


so............... chris, you state that you interviewed the mohawk who was "64 years of age at that time" and "24 when the towers were built" you have also stated elsewhere that you interviewed this worker in 2002

64-24=40

2002-40=1962

btw the construction of the towers began in 1969-70 i think......

so which one is it?

you are wrong?
is the mohawk wrong?
or is it all a pile of steaming *********?still wriggling chris?

BV

[tsig]

What about the mechanical rooms and the "thinner walls", Chris? You made a claim, I showed you counter evidence. Got any proof there was only one mechanical floor and that the walls got thinner?

Chris talks out of both sides of his mouth and his rear end at the same time.

Facts! we don't need no stinking facts.

What I type is reality why do you not see?

[JonnyFive]

Chris talks out of both sides of his mouth and his rear end at the same time.

Facts! we don't need no stinking facts.

What I type is reality why do you not see?

At least he's a hoot.

[bonavada]

here:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87484579cbcc9ee7e.jpg

i have overlain a schematic of the WTC lift set-up over one of chris' favourite pics. i'm sure many would agree that it is highly possible that what we see in the original are the lift shafts present in both towers.
hey chris just had a thought.....could you please show us a typical floor plan of one of the lower floors of a tower and indicate exactly where your 17 foot thick lump of concrete would fit in?

BV

[tsig]

At least he's a hoot.

Well ok

But I think I'm away at least for the day.

Life is shorter than you think.

And then you don't think.

Just stink.

[Bell]

Okay Chris, I'll make it really simple for you. There is just one thing you have to do.

Show us raw evidence of the PBS documentary.

[se7ensnakes]

Belz i am trying to bend a 1/4 inch sheet metal using jet fuel......still no successes.........can you tell me again how this works? i dont get it...........why can i bend this 1/4 carbon steel........a minute fraction of the 5inch steel column beams in the world trade center. why is this not working. help me out here.....CAN ANY OF YOU DENIALS PLEASE TELL ME HOW I CAN USE JET FUEL TO BEND THIS 1/4" PLATE STEEL??? what do i need to do??? Do you think i need to flood more jet fuel there? blow some extra oxygen on the flame....what special thing did the fire in the world trade center have that the fire in my shop does not have? I am going to take my 50 ton hydraulic press and press carbon steel and note the difference between jet fuel heated steel pieces and cold steel pieces......according to your theory........the jet fuel heated carbon steel should be considerably easier to bend. Will i find a minute......almost negligible difference or a big difference?
hey this will make a good science fair project!
I mean I dont think that this is somekind of fantasy you are pulling on me is it?

Lets be clear...........you are saying that it was
1) the impact of the plane the subsequent damage
2) and the heat from the jet fuel that caused its collapse
right?

I dont want you weasiling out and telling me that it was just the impact

[Bell]

.......... ........... ........... ?

[A W Smith]

Snakes perhaps you can figure out how a plasma torch works using nothing but an ignition tip and common shop air?

[JonnyFive]

.......... ........... ........... ?

You've got that right!

[Peter S.]

I'm not sure this will mean anything to Chris, but I just received this from PBS.

Thank you for writing to PBS. We appreciate hearing from those interested in public television and its programs.

Since PBS is not a production entity, we do not assist in producing programs. We acquire previously completed programming or enter into production agreements with a variety of independent producers, and then distribute this programming to our member stations which are independently owned and operated. We do not have a record of a program distributed with this title or of that nature in 1990. We have distributed several programs on the World Trade Center and the events of 9/11 recently including:

FRONTLINE "Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/faith/

NOVA "Why the Towers Fell": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

AMERICA REBUILDS II: RETURN TO GROUND ZERO: http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds2/

I hope this information is helpful. Thank you again for your email.

Sincerely,
Amelia
PBS Viewer Services

[Powa]

se7ensnakes, will you tell us your theory how it all happened or not? Because if you can't that's ok. Maybe you're good at something else.

[Mobyseven]

Lets be clear...........you are saying that it was
1) the impact of the plane the subsequent damage
2) and the heat from the jet fuel that caused its collapse
right?

Yes.

In fact, that is exactly what people have been saying all along. Are you saying that this is improbable?

So now that you understand what we've been saying, why don't you tell us what YOU are saying.

[Bell]

I'm not sure this will mean anything to Chris, but I just received this from PBS.

Thank you for writing to PBS. We appreciate hearing from those interested in public television and its programs.

Since PBS is not a production entity, we do not assist in producing programs. We acquire previously completed programming or enter into production agreements with a variety of independent producers, and then distribute this programming to our member stations which are independently owned and operated. We do not have a record of a program distributed with this title or of that nature in 1990. We have distributed several programs on the World Trade Center and the events of 9/11 recently including:

FRONTLINE "Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/faith/

NOVA "Why the Towers Fell": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

AMERICA REBUILDS II: RETURN TO GROUND ZERO: http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds2/

I hope this information is helpful. Thank you again for your email.

Sincerely,
Amelia
PBS Viewer Services


Thanks Peter. Let's use that together with my question...

Okay Chris, I'll make it really simple for you. There is just one thing you have to do.

Show us raw evidence of the PBS documentary.

[Z]

Belz i am trying to bend a 1/4 inch sheet metal using jet fuel......still no successes.........can you tell me again how this works? i dont get it...........why can i bend this 1/4 carbon steel........a minute fraction of the 5inch steel column beams in the world trade center. why is this not working. help me out here.....CAN ANY OF YOU DENIALS PLEASE TELL ME HOW I CAN USE JET FUEL TO BEND THIS 1/4" PLATE STEEL??? what do i need to do??? Do you think i need to flood more jet fuel there? blow some extra oxygen on the flame....what special thing did the fire in the world trade center have that the fire in my shop does not have? I am going to take my 50 ton hydraulic press and press carbon steel and note the difference between jet fuel heated steel pieces and cold steel pieces......according to your theory........the jet fuel heated carbon steel should be considerably easier to bend. Will i find a minute......almost negligible difference or a big difference?
hey this will make a good science fair project!
I mean I dont think that this is somekind of fantasy you are pulling on me is it?

Lets be clear...........you are saying that it was
1) the impact of the plane the subsequent damage
2) and the heat from the jet fuel that caused its collapse
right?

I dont want you weasiling out and telling me that it was just the impact


Not so much the jet fuel as it was the sustained office fires - furniture, papers, bodies - which can reach in excess of 1200 degrees fahrenheit. At 600 degrees, steel weakens to approx. half of its load bearing capacity. Then add several hundred tons of pressure, and see if it bends.

[Christophera]

Okay Chris, I'll make it really simple for you. There is just one thing you have to do.

Show us raw evidence of the PBS documentary.

Okay Bell, I'll make it really simple for you. There is just one thing you have to do.

Show us raw evidence of the 47, steel core columns from the 1,000's of images of the demolition.

[Christophera]

Thank you for writing to PBS. We appreciate hearing from those interested in public television and its programs.

Since PBS is not a production entity, we do not assist in producing programs. We acquire previously completed programming or enter into production agreements with a variety of independent producers, and then distribute this programming to our member stations which are independently owned and operated. We do not have a record of a program distributed with this title or of that nature in 1990. We have distributed several programs on the World Trade Center and the events of 9/11 recently including:

FRONTLINE "Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/faith/

NOVA "Why the Towers Fell": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

AMERICA REBUILDS II: RETURN TO GROUND ZERO: http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds2/

I hope this information is helpful. Thank you again for your email.

Sincerely,
Amelia
PBS Viewer Services

I'm not sure this will mean anything to Chris, but I just received this from PBS.

"We acquire previously completed programming or enter into production agreements with a variety of independent producers,"

That covers the production potentials. Others have gone throught similar steps to find they know nothign of the documentary called "The Construction of the Twin Towers". Which doesn't surprise me.

When I saw WTC 2 fall on 9-11 I knew the documentary must have been removed from their archives and records.

[Bell]

Okay Bell, I'll make it really simple for you. There is just one thing you have to do.

Show us raw evidence of the 47, steel core columns from the 1,000's of images of the demolition.

Evasion noted.

Now, show us raw evidence of the PBS documentary.

[Christophera]

so............... chris, you state that you interviewed the mohawk who was "64 years of age at that time" and "24 when the towers were built" you have also stated elsewhere that you interviewed this worker in 2002

64-24=40

2002-40=1962

btw the construction of the towers began in 1969-70 i think......

so which one is it?

you are wrong?
is the mohawk wrong?
or is it all a pile of steaming *********?still wriggling chris?

BV

I think you missed my earlier post where I explained you were confused between when I met him and when I interviewed him. At any rate all the infor I gave to you was from him.

Have you found any raw evidence of images from the demolition that show some of the 47, 1300 foot steel columns in the core area from some elevation over the ground.

I do have this excellent image that shows the WTC core and it must be concrete (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG), because no other material can have this appearance nad have endured the hundreds of thousands of tons of heavy steel crashing over it.

There are quite a few more images of concrete as well as links to web sites that mention the concrete core, here,

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

Keep in mind since the WTC plans HAVE NEVER BEEN MADE AVAILABLE, there is a lot of confusion. Here are links documenting this 2 different ways/times.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

[Bell]

I think you missed my earlier post where I explained you were confused between when I met him and when I interviewed him. At any rate all the infor I gave to you was from him.

Have you found any raw evidence of images from the demolition that show some of the 47, 1300 foot steel columns inthe core area from some elevation over the ground.

I do have this excellent image that shows the WTC core and it must be concrete (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG), because no other material can have this appearance nad have endured the hundreds of thousands of tons of heavy steel crashing over it.

There are quite a few more images of concrete as well as links to web sites that mention the concrete core, here,

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

Keep in mind since the WTC plans HAVE NEVER BEEN MADE AVAILABLE, there is a lot of confusion.

Do you realise that posting your spam again and again doesn't answer the questions put to you? Stop moving the goalposts.

Please explain to Bonavada and the rest of us about the age differences of the mohawk you allegedly interviewed and the times the towers were constructed.

[Blue Mountain]

that's nothing new.
he still hasn't explained how he claims it was C4 that was used to coat the rebar, when C-4 wasn't a term that was used back when the building were being built.
Or even what floors held the mechanical equipment, when that information is all over the internet, just a simple search away!

Hey Chris, are you ever going to bother showing us you have even elementary research skills by correctly numbering the floors that held the mechanical equipment?

[bonavada]

I think you missed my earlier post where I explained you were confused between when I met him and when I interviewed him. At any rate all the infor I gave to you was from him.

<evasive irrelevance snipped>



there is no confusion on my part chris you state HERE (http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15600&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=e059854b9b9534bc401a2ff80c9762e5)


I interviewed a Mohawk who was 24 when the towers were built. He couldn't say he remembered the concrete core. But he did remember they could only go 7 floors over the core with steel. He still had 2 friends that worked with him on the towers that were living. I asked him to speak with them about the core to see if they could revive each others memory.
When I explained that the FEMA said it was made with steel core columns, he became afraid. He was 64 years of age at that time. I could try him again. Maybe the fact I'm stilll alive will encourage him.

he was 64 years of age when you interviewed him. correct?
he was 24 years old when the towers were built. correct?

so when did you interview him chris?
even if it was yesterday..............

64-24=40

2006-40=1966

remind me again, when were the towers built?

once again........


you are wrong?
is the mohawk wrong?
or is it all a pile of steaming *********?BV

[Christophera]

No, you're the one who's trying to take a snapshot and making it the whole event.

We have an image of the top of one of two towers falling the wrong way.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1tiltingfromsouth.jpg

We have the top of the other tower falling the opposite diection of the body. Impossible without explosives.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg

We have an image of plumes of sand and gravel, concrete particulate cascading up and out hundreds of feet.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg

Here is an image of a uniform mushroom shape of puverized concrete from the core and floors extending perhaps 150 feet out from the tower faces.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg

Clearly, you are intentionally making an error by stating I am using one image to prove demolition.

[TellyKNeasuss]

I think you missed my earlier post where I explained you were confused between when I met him and when I interviewed him. At any rate all the infor I gave to you was from him.

Yeah, right.

Have you found any raw evidence of images from the demolition that show some of the 47, 1300 foot steel columns in the core area from some elevation over the ground.STRAWMAN! There weren't any 1300 foot steel columns. There were shorter columns connected together.

I do have this excellent image that shows the WTC core and it must be concrete (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG), because no other material can have this appearance nad have endured the hundreds of thousands of tons of heavy steel crashing over it.As I thought. Your definition of an "excellent image" is one in which there is so much dust and smoke that it is impossible to see any detail.

There are quite a few more images of concrete as well as links to web sites that mention the concrete core, here,

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html
But any not on your website?

Keep in mind since the WTC plans HAVE NEVER BEEN MADE AVAILABLE, there is a lot of confusion.I guess you haven't noticed that the rest of us aren't confused.

By the way, how did they manage to fit a 400 foot concrete wall into a 218 foot building? And why did they install the floors in the core area before they put in the concrete core?

[Christophera]

Or even what floors held the mechanical equipment, when that information is all over the internet, just a simple search away!

Hey Chris, are you ever going to bother showing us you have even elementary research skills by correctly numbering the floors that held the mechanical equipment?

Hey Blue Mountain, are you ever going to read this thread to determine I've answered just about every question that can be asked, if I can?

So, ............. are you lazy?

The lower mechanical floors are 41, 42 & 43.

[Bell]

Hey Blue Mountain, are you ever going to read this thread to determine I've answered just about every question that can be asked, if I can?

Then provide us with raw evidence of the PBS documentary.

So, ............. are you lazy?

The lower mechanical floors are 41, 42 & 43.

The 'lower' mechancial floors were on 41 and 42 only. I've told you this before. Are you lazy?

[bonavada]

I've answered just about every question that can be asked, if I can?
So, ............. are you lazy?


he isn't lazy, you are. or you would answer this:-


are you wrong?
is the mohawk wrong?
or is it all a pile of steaming *********?BV

[Christophera]

Have you found any raw evidence of images from the demolition that show some of the 47, 1300 foot steel columns in the core area from some elevation over the ground.

STRAWMAN! There weren't any 1300 foot steel columns. There were shorter columns connected together.

Since that is the "official core design" you should be able to prove it.

[Z]

Okay Bell, I'll make it really simple for you. There is just one thing you have to do.

Show us raw evidence of the 47, steel core columns from the 1,000's of images of the demolition.


Why? There's plenty of evidence from available plans, construction photos, and recovered debris. The only person who's claiming the steel didn't exist is you. Therefore, the burden of proof is yours.

Meanwhile, there's no evidence in available plans, construction photos, or recovered debris of a concrete core, exploded or not, of 3" rebar, or of C4. The only person who's claiming it was there is you. Therefore, the burden of proof is yours.

That's how it works.

[Z]

When I saw WTC 2 fall on 9-11 I knew the documentary must have been removed from their archives and records.

... and personal archives of TV Guide. And all personal collections. And several programming guides... though on this point I admit I've only gained three month's worth.

Chris, what month was this thing shown?

[uruk]

Hey Chris! You still haven't shown me Tony Jebsons Concrete core.
He said you could see it. You agreed with him. So show me the pictures. I showed you a picture of the construction of WTC1 from street level.

[uruk]

Keep in mind since the WTC plans HAVE NEVER BEEN MADE AVAILABLE, there is a lot of confusion. Here are links documenting this 2 different ways/times.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

Read this PDF file.:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2ADraft.pdf

Go to pages 36,37,39,40,41,42,43,44,53,67,68,70,82,97,105,1124 ,126,127,128,129, and 176 (PDF pages)


By the looks of the images of the NIST report, it seems that the NIST had VERY detailed plans of the towers.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Since that is the "official core design" you should be able to prove it.

You've conceded that the Sears Tower has a steel core. It is around 1400 feet tall. Are there 1400 foot single-section columns it it? How would they have been transported there? Obviously they were constructed out of shorter pieces.

[Christophera]

there is no confusion on my part chris you state HERE (http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15600&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=e059854b9b9534bc401a2ff80c9762e5)




he was 64 years of age when you interviewed him. correct?
he was 24 years old when the towers were built. correct?

so when did you interview him chris?
even if it was yesterday..............

64-24=40

2006-40=1966

remind me again, when were the towers built?

once again........


you are wrong?
is the mohawk wrong?
or is it all a pile of steaming *********?BV

I'm not sure but it looks like one of us is. I met him in 2002 at the "House of Blues" at the "Red Nation Celebrationl" in Los Angeles where he was talking about working on the WTC while a couple of others, Navajo elders from WWII, talked about their being consultants on "Windtalkers" (I think it was called". I interviewed him in late 2004 or early 2005 over the phone and I remember he told me he started in 1968 on the towers (the steel didn't start until then.) He might have said, "I'm going to be 64 soon". So there is a lag in the arithmatic, maybe there isn't. I know it is very important to you to smear my credibility in some way, so get from it what you can.

But, what about your inability to document the supposed steel cores with raw evidence of images from the towers demise. I mean, ........... here you are pretending this issue of the steelworkers age is important in an attempt to distract form your own utter inability to show the official structure is real.

Ive shown that no one has ever seen the plans that was a part of the official invetistigation. I've shown that the mayor of NYC took the plans from the city and hid them while the courts will not impliment the freedom of information laws to get teh public documents returned.

You know that evidence was removed from the scene and destroyed.

Why are you protecting those who have been proven to have violated so many laws, ignoring the violations and then implimenting weak, BS effort to impune the credibility of one who has assembled facts of all types into a feasible and credible explanation for near free fall and pulverization?

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

How about you answer one question NOW?

[Christophera]

You've conceded that the Sears Tower has a steel core. It is around 1400 feet tall. Are there 1400 foot single-section columns it it? How would they have been transported there? Obviously they were constructed out of shorter pieces.

You and homer ought to rent a room together.

They were transported in short sections and butt welded to for single complete full length columns.

[Christophera]

Read this PDF file.:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2ADraft.pdf

Go to pages 36,37,39,40,41,42,43,44,53,67,68,70,82,97,105,1124 ,126,127,128,129, and 176 (PDF pages)


By the looks of the images of the NIST report, it seems that the NIST had VERY detailed plans of the towers.

Recall I KNOW the towers had a steel reinforced concrete core and I can prove it with RAW EVIDENCE of images. (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) Meaning if you think you've got plans that show details of the core, you find then and bring them. Then I'll look at them.

[Mobyseven]

We have an image of the top of one of two towers falling the wrong way.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1tiltingfromsouth.jpg

We have the top of the other tower falling the opposite diection of the body. Impossible without explosives.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.jpg

We have an image of plumes of sand and gravel, concrete particulate cascading up and out hundreds of feet.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1plumecascade.jpg

Here is an image of a uniform mushroom shape of puverized concrete from the core and floors extending perhaps 150 feet out from the tower faces.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg

Clearly, you are intentionally making an error by stating I am using one image to prove demolition.

That's a lot of images there. Got anything other than incorrectly interpreted still images?

[Christophera]

Hey Chris! You still haven't shown me Tony Jebsons Concrete core.
He said you could see it. You agreed with him. So show me the pictures. I showed you a picture of the construction of WTC1 from street level.

I've shown you an image of the WTC 2 core standing at around 500 feet and it can be nothing but concrete. And I've made a web site available to you with more images utilized with real logic to show the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html).

Amongst the evidence is this from Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992. We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4452&stc=1&d=1165635717

[Christophera]

I guess you haven't noticed that the rest of us aren't confused.

By the way, how did they manage to fit a 400 foot concrete wall into a 218 foot building? And why did they install the floors in the core area before they put in the concrete core?

If you haven't been reading to find out the core was covered with a temporary floor while the core was being cast, then you are just lazy and thus ignorant. Where do you come up with a 400 foot concrete wall?

More ignornace?

The core was 80 x 120 inside.

[Christophera]

... and personal archives of TV Guide. And all personal collections. And several programming guides... though on this point I admit I've only gained three month's worth.

Chris, what month was this thing shown?

Not at all sure, it may have even been fall of 1989.

[uruk]

Recall I KNOW the towers had a steel reinforced concrete core and I can prove it with RAW EVIDENCE of images. (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html) Meaning if you think you've got plans that show details of the core, you find then and bring them. Then I'll look at them.
So you didn't look at the pages in the the report that shows the detailed plans? I proveded the link I pointed out the pages, look at them for yourself.

[Christophera]

Why? There's plenty of evidence from available plans, construction photos, and recovered debris. The only person who's claiming the steel didn't exist is you. Therefore, the burden of proof is yours.

Meanwhile, there's no evidence in available plans, construction photos, or recovered debris of a concrete core, exploded or not, of 3" rebar, or of C4. The only person who's claiming it was there is you. Therefore, the burden of proof is yours.

That's how it works.

Plans are not vaild here because they are not actual construction plans. Those false documents are the one in question. Construction photos, or their "misinterpretations" do not match photos of the towers demise, so tose will not be acceptable. Recovered debris canot be placed in the core as its original location,

You, .......... have no evidence to support your fake plans.

I have evidence of a steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete core.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

[Mobyseven]

Amongst the evidence is this from Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992. We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.

Does anyone know what the correct title of this book is, or whether it exists?

I can't find it...

[Christophera]

Then provide us with raw evidence of the PBS documentary.



The 'lower' mechancial floors were on 41 and 42 only. I've told you this before. Are you lazy?

No, I might be simply wrong on an inconsequential detail, while you are wrong on a major one.


The steel reinforced tubular cast concrete core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

[uruk]

I've shown you an image of the WTC 2 core standing at around 500 feet and it can be nothing but concrete. And I've made a web site available to you with more images utilized with real logic to show the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html).

Amongst the evidence is this from Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992. We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4452&stc=1&d=1165635717

So your still avoiding the issue.
You posted an e-mail by one Tony Jebson that says he saw a concrete core going up "several floors" abouve the steel work during construction. You agreed with him.
I showed you a picture taken from street level of WTC1 that proves Mr.Jebson, and by extention you, wrong. And you keep avoiding that fact.

So show me a picture of the concrete core being built several floors abouve the the steel work, just like Mr. Jebson mentioned in his e-mail, or admit that you are wrong. The more you evade the issue the more it makes you look dishonest.

[uruk]

No, I might be simply wrong on an inconsequential detail, while you are wrong on a major one.


The steel reinforced tubular cast concrete core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

So now you're refusing to provide the most crucial evidence you have. (or even evidence that it existed.)

Tell me again why we should believe you?

[Christophera]

So now you're refusing to provide the most crucial evidence you have. (or even evidence that it existed.)

Tell me again why we should believe you?

The evidence you ask for is not available. No refusual on my part.

I show the WTC 2 core standing at approximately 500 feet, (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) that includes the concrete Tony Jebson refers to

[Arus808]

Does anyone know what the correct title of this book is, or whether it exists?

I can't find it...

why it doesn't matter what it defines a skyscraper as "having" since buildigns, even skyscrapers are all built differently with different techiniques

a defnition of what a skyscraper is , doesn't mean that the WTC towers were built as what the defnition is.

[Christophera]

why it doesn't matter what it defines a skyscraper as "having" since buildigns, even skyscrapers are all built differently with different techiniques

a defnition of what a skyscraper is , doesn't mean that the WTC towers were built as what the defnition is.

It is pretty clear what the book, Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) says in reference to the Twin Towers.

"Modern skyscrapers such as the "World Trade Center", New York, have steel and concrete hull-and-core structures. The central core a reinforced concrete tower contrains lift shafts, staircases, and vertical ducts."

And, there is lots more evidence from disinterested sources confirming a concrete core, here.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

Be informed that because the original plans have never been seen by official reporting sources on the towers, that some confusion exists and the LIE about the core is being fully enabled.

[A W Smith]

The evidence you ask for is not available. No refusual on my part.

I show the WTC 2 core standing at approximately 500 feet, (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) that includes the concrete Tony Jebson refers to


that debris that you show over and over again is nothing more than a debris clogged skeleton of steel. which collapsed almost immediately . the claim of some seeing the "steel turn to dust" is the column of steel collapsing and shedding its dust. And the other photo you show you claim is the "Concrete filled exterior columns" collapsing on #6 would be laughable if your mistaken conclusion wasn't so tragic. You are clueless in interpreting data. 9431 posts and you haven't convinced a single soul. In fact I don't think you have convinced yourself. Just trying to save face by not admitting your colossal error. You are a fool. I will not waste my time any more with you.

[Arus808]

It is pretty clear what the book, Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) says in reference to the Twin Towers.

A search on several book sites and within my own public library says there is no such book. For someone who uses a questionable passage from a non existant book, you'd figure that you'd have a the ISBN number and actual image of the book to prove your point than just a scan that could have been typed up on a any word processing program.

And a question to the Oxford University Press provided that they never authored such book nor every published anything under that title.

Please try harder Chris. You know what they say when you lie so much...

IF Amazon can locate a title that was published in 1949, they surely as hell could find a book that was published in 1992. In fact , I just received a book that was published in 1990, that was out of print since 1991 from them. Waited 6 years to finally receive a used copy. Its nice when Amazon notifies you when they locate a copy of such rare books

Here, you can search their site for yourself:
http://www.oup.com/us/

Funny thing about Oxford. they dont even combin Technology and Innovation together.

But they have an extensive collection of engineering books. You might want to stop and buy some of their books and read them.


And you take one passage from a no existant book, that could have been written by someone who mistakened, and think that is proof, when there have been OTHER Publications that say the WTC towers were built with a steel framed core? You reak of the same Cter stink, who discount hundreds of witnesses who say they saw the planes, for the 10 witnesses who said there were no planes.

The fact that you still have the erroneous BBC illustration from a clueless artist who didn't have access to the plans of WTC, and didn't bother to call the designers of the WTC towers, speaks volumes of your credibility. Which sadly is less than fathers who dont pay child support.

[Mobyseven]

It is pretty clear what the book, Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) says in reference to the Twin Towers.

"Modern skyscrapers such as the "World Trade Center", New York, have steel and concrete hull-and-core structures. The central core a reinforced concrete tower contrains lift shafts, staircases, and vertical ducts."

And, there is lots more evidence from disinterested sources confirming a concrete core, here.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

Be informed that because the original plans have never been seen by official reporting sources on the towers, that some confusion exists and the LIE about the core is being fully enabled.


I would like to locate a copy of this book myself. As we have assertained that Oxford have never published an "Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation", let alone in 1992, I would like to know where this book was obtained from and its proper name.

Alternatively, just post a link to the image from the book that is NOT hosted on your site.

[Christophera]

A search on several book sites and within my own public library says there is no such book. For someone who uses a questionable passage from a non existant book, you'd figure that you'd have a the ISBN number and actual image of the book to prove your point than just a scan that could have been typed up on a any word processing program.

And a question to the Oxford University Press provided that they never authored such book nor every published anything under that title.

Please try harder Chris. You know what they say when you lie so much...

IF Amazon can locate a title that was published in 1949, they surely as hell could find a book that was published in 1992. In fact , I just received a book that was published in 1990, that was out of print since 1991 from them. Waited 6 years to finally receive a used copy. Its nice when Amazon notifies you when they locate a copy of such rare books

Here, you can search their site for yourself:
http://www.oup.com/us/

Funny thing about Oxford. they dont even combin Technology and Innovation together.

But they have an extensive collection of engineering books. You might want to stop and buy some of their books and read them.


And you take one passage from a no existant book, that could have been written by someone who mistakened, and think that is proof, when there have been OTHER Publications that say the WTC towers were built with a steel framed core? You reak of the same Cter stink, who discount hundreds of witnesses who say they saw the planes, for the 10 witnesses who said there were no planes.

The fact that you still have the erroneous BBC illustration from a clueless artist who didn't have access to the plans of WTC, and didn't bother to call the designers of the WTC towers, speaks volumes of your credibility. Which sadly is less than fathers who dont pay child support.

If you register at democraticunderground.com and ask seatnineb these questions you will get answers. All I can tell you is that is where I got the image, from him.

Maybe you are getting the picture on how easily the information you think you have is taken away.

The information is accurate, I can confirm it ans I have raw evidence from the demise of the towers which shows a tubular cast concrete core. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

[Christophera]

that debris that you show over and over again is nothing more than a debris clogged skeleton of steel. which collapsed almost immediately . the claim of some seeing the "steel turn to dust" is the column of steel collapsing and shedding its dust. And the other photo you show you claim is the "Concrete filled exterior columns" collapsing on #6 would be laughable if your mistaken conclusion wasn't so tragic. You are clueless in interpreting data. 9431 posts and you haven't convinced a single soul. In fact I don't think you have convinced yourself. Just trying to save face by not admitting your colossal error. You are a fool. I will not waste my time any more with you.

You are in error. Here is an end view of the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) of the steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete core. Her is an image showing its high tensile steel rebar. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

[Z]

Not at all sure, it may have even been fall of 1989.


If you're not sure about that, what else might you not be sure of?

Was it even about the WTC, Chris?

What happened to your photographic memory?

[Z]

Plans are not vaild here because they are not actual construction plans.

Can you show evidence for that claim?

Those false documents are the one in question.

Only to you.

Construction photos, or their "misinterpretations" do not match photos of the towers demise,

Actually, they match quite well.

so tose will not be acceptable.

What you meant to type was, construction photos do not match your misinterpretation of fuzzy, dust-filled photographs, so in order to keep your theory intact, you will reject those. Got it.

Recovered debris canot be placed in the core as its original location,

But the debris exists of steel core columns, not of a concrete core.

You, .......... have no evidence to support your fake plans.

Oh, I have plans now? --Oh, you mean the blueprints, which you cannot prove are fake. Actually, there is a mountain of evidence to support them.

I have evidence of a steel reinforced, tubular cast concrete core.

No you don't.

[Z]

A search on several book sites and within my own public library says there is no such book. For someone who uses a questionable passage from a non existant book, you'd figure that you'd have a the ISBN number and actual image of the book to prove your point than just a scan that could have been typed up on a any word processing program.

And a question to the Oxford University Press provided that they never authored such book nor every published anything under that title.

Please try harder Chris. You know what they say when you lie so much...

IF Amazon can locate a title that was published in 1949, they surely as hell could find a book that was published in 1992. In fact , I just received a book that was published in 1990, that was out of print since 1991 from them. Waited 6 years to finally receive a used copy. Its nice when Amazon notifies you when they locate a copy of such rare books

Here, you can search their site for yourself:
http://www.oup.com/us/

Funny thing about Oxford. they dont even combin Technology and Innovation together.

But they have an extensive collection of engineering books. You might want to stop and buy some of their books and read them.


And you take one passage from a no existant book, that could have been written by someone who mistakened, and think that is proof, when there have been OTHER Publications that say the WTC towers were built with a steel framed core? You reak of the same Cter stink, who discount hundreds of witnesses who say they saw the planes, for the 10 witnesses who said there were no planes.

The fact that you still have the erroneous BBC illustration from a clueless artist who didn't have access to the plans of WTC, and didn't bother to call the designers of the WTC towers, speaks volumes of your credibility. Which sadly is less than fathers who dont pay child support.

Boom! Another false resource revealed.

Chris is nothing but a liar.

[Z]

If you register at democraticunderground.com and ask seatnineb these questions you will get answers. All I can tell you is that is where I got the image, from him.

Maybe you are getting the picture on how easily the information you think you have is taken away.

The information is accurate, I can confirm it ans I have raw evidence from the demise of the towers which shows a tubular cast concrete core. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

...??

And it never occurs to you to confirm his resources? How do you know he's not the one faking evidence to obfuscate the truth?

Another of your pieces of evidence discredited. Figures.

[Z]

Let me fix this for you>>>

You are in error. Here is a view of some metallic debris (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) which is probably some external facing and some of the core columns during collapes.. Her is an image of the same view showingmetallic debris at too low of a resolution to make out fine details. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

No thanks are necessary.

[bonavada]

I'm not sure but it looks like one of us is. I met him in 2002 at the "House of Blues" at the "Red Nation Celebrationl" in Los Angeles where he was talking about working on the WTC while a couple of others, Navajo elders from WWII, talked about their being consultants on "Windtalkers" (I think it was called". I interviewed him in late 2004 or early 2005 over the phone and I remember he told me he started in 1968 on the towers (the steel didn't start until then.) He might have said, "I'm going to be 64 soon". So there is a lag in the arithmatic, maybe there isn't. I know it is very important to you to smear my credibility in some way, so get from it what you can.
<blah bla yadda yadda wibble waffle> snip


no not important to me at all chris. it seems very important to you though. i'm off out for a couple of pints and a bit of football with my mates. then i'm gonna see me grandkids and my daughters for a chinwag and some "quality time". i'm going to worry about what the mrs wants for her birthday, what to do about the mess in the garden, how to fix the bathroom sink, juggle some of the queens sterling for the next round of bills.....those are the things that are kinda "important" to me.

what i do here is a sideshow, a bit of entertainment like spending an hour watching the village miscreant humiliated in the stocks, cruel fun. the truth is you are entertaining chris, it's fun to watch your cretinous ideas bowled over every other post. it's fun because i like to see rational people put pay to the dangerous poison you try to spread.

in the meantime you should be charged with breach of the peace and sentenced to wear boxing gloves for a year. this'll limit your keyboard activity and perhaps improve your remarkable short-sightedness..............

so nice chattin.

BV

[Bell]

We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.

Great!

Where is the raw evidence of the PBS documentary? Because we have to stick with available evidence.

[Spektator]

The huge welded plates that held the exterior columns together in threes are what resisted torsion and wind loading. Not the non existent concrete core. The core was all steel with two layers of 5/8 type X gypsum drywall on the core side of the fire walls with one layer of 5/8 type x on the exterior or office side of the fire walls. Also all concrete used in the towers was lightweight concrete with perlite, pumice, rotary fired shale and slag additives which weighs 90#-115# cu ft compared to 140#-150# cu ft. of conventional concrete. the difference being quite substantial when you are talking about adding approximatly 12 to 17 PSF of the designed 100 PSF live load capacity to the typical floor by removing the equivalent in dead load. Add up the total floor area and you factor in a cost savings in steel to support that reduced dead load alone.

I spoke to a gentleman who worked on the towers from the beginning of the excavation to the end of construction, and what he told me about the core agrees exactly with this--down to the thickness of the drywall. I'd take his word over the (mythical?) Mohawk's any day.

[Architect]

The demo scenario I've assembled is for the experts, and they are terrified or paid off.


What, all of us Chris?

Are you sure?

How many qualified architects and engineers are there in the US? In Europe? In the world?

Heck, how many are in countries opposed to the US?

And we're all in on the plot?!?

Wow!

[Architect]

Chris has:

1. No substantive evidence

2. Used (Or invented) false evidence that is shown as such

3. Changed the detail of his story several times.

4. Blatantly misinterpreted photographs posted by himself and us.

5. Refused to engage in meanginful discourse.

Clearly a career in politics awaits him.

[Bell]

Chris has:

1. No substantive evidence

2. Used (Or invented) false evidence that is shown as such

3. Changed the detail of his story several times.

4. Blatantly misinterpreted photographs posted by himself and us.

5. Refused to engage in meanginful discourse.

Clearly a career in politics awaits him.

Everytime Chris makes a wild claim, show him this quote:

We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.

[TellyKNeasuss]

You and homer ought to rent a room together.

They were transported in short sections and butt welded to for single complete full length columns.

Hey, you are the one who's claiming that there were 1300 foot steel columns in the twin towers. I've been claiming that there were shorter columns welded together, exactly as you stated for the Sears Tower. So are we now in agreement that there could have been steel columns that were welded together in the towers?

[TellyKNeasuss]

If you haven't been reading to find out the core was covered with a temporary floor while the core was being cast, then you are just lazy and thus ignorant.

Another ridiculous assertion. There would be no reason to install a floor before building the core, then tearing out the floor and pouring concrete, and then putting in another floor.

Where do you come up with a 400 foot concrete wall?

More ignornace?

The core was 80 x 120 inside.

More ignorance on your part. You have claimed that the rebar was spaced 4 feet apart and that there were 100 or more in a line. 4 x 100 = 400. Obviously you just made up both of those numbers.

[TellyKNeasuss]

No, I might be simply wrong on an inconsequential detail, while you are wrong on a major one.



The steel reinforced tubular cast concrete core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)


So your memory isn't perfect??? I'm astonished!

[Christophera]

Let me fix this for you>>>

[QUOTE=Christophera's INFO damaged by zaayrdragon;2161876]
You are in error. Here is a view of some metallic debris which is probably some external facing and some of the core columns during collapes.. Her is an image of the same view showingmetallic debris at too low of a resolution to make out fine details.

No thanks are necessary.

If you seriously think you fixed something, you are out of the technical discussion.

[Blue Mountain]

Hey Blue Mountain, are you ever going to read this thread to determine I've answered just about every question that can be asked, if I can?

So, ............. are you lazy?

The lower mechanical floors are 41, 42 & 43.
Christophera, I have every page of this saga archived on my computer so I can search it.

This discussion started on page 125 when you said the Skylobby was on floor 42, which is wrong. I called you on it and asked you to give me the floor numbers of the mechanical floors. You managed to get the answer wrong even though Bell posted the correct answer before you did!

On page 230, you again incorrectly labelled the 43rd floor as mechanical. On page 236, I asked again about which floors contained the mechanical equipment. And again, even though the correct answer has been given at least twice in this thread, usually within a few posts of you giving the wrong answer, you still manage to get the answer wrong!

In addition, there were mechanical floors above the halfway point of the towers that, to my recollection and searching through this thread, you have never even acknowledged existed. By failing to include those floors in the answer I quoted, you managed to compound your wrong answer by giving only half the necessary information.

Yes, you've answered just about every question posed to you, with an enormous amount of obfuscation and hand-waving. A lot of the time, too, you simply get the answer wrong. Even for things which are well documented and could be found with a simple web search.

It is any wonder no one else in the entire 9/11 conspiracy theory community takes you seriously?

Once again, Christophera, please demonstrate to us that you have even rudimentary research skills by showing us which floors in WTC 1 & 2 were regarded as "mechanical" floors.
Bonus points for:
1) Showing the sources you used
2) Correctly indicating which floors were Skylobbies
3) Correctly indicating the documented use of the 43rd floor (it was different in WTC 1 & 2, according to my sources)

[Christophera]

Another ridiculous assertion. There would be no reason to install a floor before building the core, then tearing out the floor and pouring concrete, and then putting in another floor.

The elevator guide rail supports and rail alignment benefitted greatly from having a temporary platform to work from.

Do you think they cut holes in the final floor for the elevators, duh?

More ignorance on your part. You have claimed that the rebar was spaced 4 feet apart and that there were 100 or more in a line. 4 x 100 = 400. Obviously you just made up both of those numbers.

You've got me with the above. Thirty 3" rebar on 4' centers (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). There are 20 across the cameras view and they are visible which means the assertion of the deniers that a 3 inch rebar will not resolve in a pixel is completely erroneous. Or, simply waving around make sthe needed exposure. Whatever, the fine veritcal elements are definitely there and very small.

I really do not sweat small details when such BIG ones (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) are so erroneouly evaluated and ignored.

[Bell]

The elevator guide rail supports and rail alignment benefitted greatly from having a temporary platform to work from.

Source?

We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.

[Christophera]

Christophera, I have every page of this saga archived on my computer so I can search it.

This discussion started on page 125 when you said the Skylobby was on floor 42, which is wrong. I called you on it and asked you to give me the floor numbers of the mechanical floors. You managed to get the answer wrong even though Bell posted the correct answer before you did!

On page 230, you again incorrectly labelled the 43rd floor as mechanical. On page 236, I asked again about which floors contained the mechanical equipment. And again, even though the correct answer has been given at least twice in this thread, usually within a few posts of you giving the wrong answer, you still manage to get the answer wrong!

In addition, there were mechanical floors above the halfway point of the towers that, to my recollection and searching through this thread, you have never even acknowledged existed. By failing to include those floors in the answer I quoted, you managed to compound your wrong answer by giving only half the necessary information.

Yes, you've answered just about every question posed to you, with an enormous amount of obfuscation and hand-waving. A lot of the time, too, you simply get the answer wrong. Even for things which are well documented and could be found with a simple web search.

It is any wonder no one else in the entire 9/11 conspiracy theory community takes you seriously?

Once again, Christophera, please demonstrate to us that you have even rudimentary research skills by showing us which floors in WTC 1 & 2 were regarded as "mechanical" floors.
Bonus points for:
1) Showing the sources you used
2) Correctly indicating which floors were Skylobbies
3) Correctly indicating the documented use of the 43rd floor (it was different in WTC 1 & 2, according to my sources)

See the post before this. When deniers repeatedly ignore and erroneously evaluate VERY BIG issues, (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) I can hardly care about the little stuff.

In other words, when evidence is removed and destroyed in 3,000 capitol crimes, building plans are made unavailable to investigatiing agencies., or private investigations are blocked in what is supposed to be a collapse, little, petty details do not matter.

Your insistence on those inconsequential matters being important makes you a supporter of the infiltration of the US government and a protector of the lies that muderers hide behind.

[beachnut]

I really do not sweat small details when such BIG ones (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) are so erroneouly evaluated and ignored.

No concrete core visibile because there is no concrete core.

I use your web site to prove there is no concrete core.

[Christophera]

The elevator guide rail supports and rail alignment benefitted greatly from having a temporary platform to work from.

Do you think they cut holes in the final floor for the elevators, duh?

Source?

Common sense and logic, which completely escape you.

[beachnut]

In other words, when evidence is removed and destroyed in 3,000 capitol crimes, building plans are made unavailable to investigatiing agencies., or private investigations are blocked in what is supposed to be a collapse, little, petty details do not matter.



You can get the building plans, but you will have to use money.

[Bell]

Common sense and logic, which completely escape you.

Common sense and logic is NOT evidence. You only want raw and available evidence from us. We hold you to the same standard. Please provide.

[Christophera]

Hey, you are the one who's claiming that there were 1300 foot steel columns in the twin towers. I've been claiming that there were shorter columns welded together, exactly as you stated for the Sears Tower. So are we now in agreement that there could have been steel columns that were welded together in the towers?

Welded makes them "one piece", just as I said they were. You need to be specific.

[Christophera]

Great!

Where is the raw evidence of the PBS documentary? Because we have to stick with available evidence.

And the documentary I viewed makes it possible for me to use available evidence. For example; this image, (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) shows the base of the concrete core wall. The rebar is actually large than notated as it extends from the foundation upward and is 6 inch.

[Christophera]

no not important to me at all chris. it seems very important to you though. i'm off out for a couple of pints and a bit of football with my mates. then i'm gonna see me grandkids and my daughters for a chinwag and some "quality time". i'm going to worry about what the mrs wants for her birthday, what to do about the mess in the garden, how to fix the bathroom sink, juggle some of the queens sterling for the next round of bills.....those are the things that are kinda "important" to me.

what i do here is a sideshow, a bit of entertainment like spending an hour watching the village miscreant humiliated in the stocks, cruel fun. the truth is you are entertaining chris, it's fun to watch your cretinous ideas bowled over every other post. it's fun because i like to see rational people put pay to the dangerous poison you try to spread.

in the meantime you should be charged with breach of the peace and sentenced to wear boxing gloves for a year. this'll limit your keyboard activity and perhaps improve your remarkable short-sightedness..............

so nice chattin.

BV

Ignoring BIG details (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) still I see.

[Mancman]

And the documentary I viewed makes it possible for me to use available evidence. For example; this image, (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) shows the base of the concrete core wall. The rebar is actually large than notated as it extends from the foundation upward and is 6 inch.

You are mentally ill and desperately in need of professional assistance.

[Z]

[QUOTE=zaayrdragon;2161876]Let me fix this for you>>>



If you seriously think you fixed something, you are out of the technical discussion.


Oh you became an admin while no one is looking? A moderator?

Hmmm... doesn't seem so.

You have no power to say whether I'm in or out.

And that correction of your misinterpretation stands.

[Z]

See the post before this. When deniers repeatedly ignore and erroneously evaluate VERY BIG issues, (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) I can hardly care about the little stuff.

In other words, when evidence is removed and destroyed in 3,000 capitol crimes, building plans are made unavailable to investigatiing agencies., or private investigations are blocked in what is supposed to be a collapse, little, petty details do not matter.

Your insistence on those inconsequential matters being important makes you a supporter of the infiltration of the US government and a protector of the lies that muderers hide behind.

You're wrong, Chris. Those 'inconsequential matters' are all you'v based your conspiracy theory on. The 'little issues' you've presented time and again have resulted in a complete lack of any credibility you may have had.

[Z]

Welded makes them "one piece", just as I said they were. You need to be specific.

So welds never break, never deform?

Chris, 'one piece' means one continuous piece of steel, from tip to tip, with no welds.

Otherwise, you have numerous pieces welded together - which can easily (under the right condition) break apart into numerous pieces.

[Christophera]

You are mentally ill and desperately in need of professional assistance.

If you cannot produce an image of any of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel core columns in the core area, but insist they exist desipte the fact that the event that would expose them if they existed does not show them, and the perpetrators of 3,000 murders are escaping based on a deception related to the core structure of the towers, you are a sociopath.

Sociopaths do not get to make evaluations of mental health in a reasonable, lawful society.

[Arus808]

If you register at democraticunderground.com and ask seatnineb these questions you will get answers. All I can tell you is that is where I got the image, from him.

Why should I have to register at another site to obtain the information that YOU are supposed to have.

Remember, its YOUR outrageous claim, so that means its YOUR job to obtain the proof to support it.

So, again, what is the exact name of the book because according to Oxford University Press, they never published such book under that title.

ISBN number and the exact title please.

[Christophera]

So welds never break, never deform?

Chris, 'one piece' means one continuous piece of steel, from tip to tip, with no welds.

Otherwise, you have numerous pieces welded together - which can easily (under the right condition) break apart into numerous pieces.

Show a broken weld between interior box columns.

[Mancman]

If you cannot produce an image of any of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel core columns in the core area, but insist they exist desipte the fact that the event that would expose them if they existed does not show them, and the perpetrators of 3,000 murders are escaping based on a deception related to the core structure of the towers, you are a sociopath.

Sociopaths do not get to make evaluations of mental health in a reasonable, lawful society.

Images have been provided and you mislabel them.

Can you produce an image of the concrete core being built?

[Christophera]

Produce an image of the concrete core being built.

We are only working with available information here.

Logically, under present conditions of 9-11, explain an image of the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) as being anythign but concrete.

[Arus808]

We are only working with available information here.

If you want information, you have to make an effort to obtain them.
That means you contact the design and architect company that were in charge and completed the construction and design of the WTC towers.

And its shown that you've never made that effort at all\

[Christophera]

Why should I have to register at another site to obtain the information that YOU are supposed to have.

Remember, its YOUR outrageous claim, so that means its YOUR job to obtain the proof to support it.

So, again, what is the exact name of the book because according to Oxford University Press, they never published such book under that title.

ISBN number and the exact title please.

I have the information of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) and it is supported by numerous instances of raw evidence ORIGINAL core IMAGE (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG). If you doubt the Oxford information, go find the one that provided it to me becuase I know the core was concrete and I have raw evidence showing it.

If you lack the integrity or experience to recognize it, your continued denial simply shows you are unreasonable.

[rwguinn]

So welds never break, never deform?

Chris, 'one piece' means one continuous piece of steel, from tip to tip, with no welds.

Otherwise, you have numerous pieces welded together - which can easily (under the right condition) break apart into numerous pieces.
Even welded...
Have you ever seen the prep work for welding huge chunksof steel?
I wanna see the ovens they used to pre-heat enough 1 and 2 inch steel to make welds even possible. Never mind the continuous, or continuously welded, steel has more problems than you can fix--just getting it welded is a real chore!

[Christophera]

If you want information, you have to make an effort to obtain them.
That means you contact the design and architect company that were in charge and completed the construction and design of the WTC towers.

And its shown that you've never made that effort at all\

I know there is a conspiracy to conceal the true design and construction of the Twin Towers, which is why the designer of the towers chose April 1, 2006 to post this message. Those who can confirm the concrete core are afraid to.

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center

[Arus808]

I have the information of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg)

NO SUCH BOOK HAS EVER BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

A question to them, something you should have done since the beginning of all this, proves that they've never published such book!

Why haven't you bothered to fact check anything that you've "obtained' from questionable sources?

[Christophera]

Even welded...
Have you ever seen the prep work for welding huge chunksof steel?
I wanna see the ovens they used to pre-heat enough 1 and 2 inch steel to make welds even possible. Never mind the continuous, or continuously welded, steel has more problems than you can fix--just getting it welded is a real chore!

Using 7018 high tensile, low hydrogen rod, beveling is all that is needed. I've been a welder for 35 years.

Images of interior box columns from ground zero are plentiful. Show us one with a broken weld on an interior box column.

[Arus808]

I know there is a conspiracy to conceal the true design and construction of the Twin Towers, which is why the designer of the towers chose April 1, 2006 to post this message. Those who can confirm the concrete core are afraid to.

Explain why they'd be afraid? WTC were PRIVATELY OWNED BUILDINGS! The designers and owners of the buildings would have no reason to fear anything.

Christophera has been shown to be wrong by hundreds of documentaitons, books, and publishments on the WTC towers, and i've just proved that one of yourEVIDENCE has been fabricated.

[Arus808]

Images of interior box columns from ground zero are plentiful. Show us one with a broken weld on an interior box column.

images from the actually construction and hte ONLY pbs documentary that still exists says that you are wrong in your interpretation.

[beachnut]

I know there is a conspiracy to conceal the true design and construction of the Twin Towers, which is why the designer of the towers chose April 1, 2006 to post this message. Those who can confirm the concrete core are afraid to.

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center

this is from who? You made this up. oops

[Z]

Show a broken weld between interior box columns.

Show me a concrete core in a construction photograph.

[Christophera]

NO SUCH BOOK HAS EVER BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

A question to them, something you should have done since the beginning of all this, proves that they've never published such book!

Why haven't you bothered to fact check anything that you've "obtained' from questionable sources?

I know the core of the Twin Towers was a steel reinforced cast concrete tube. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) Why should I question sources that agree with raw evidence showing what can only be a steel reinforced cast concrete tube?

You are duped into believing that powerful universities cannot control information about their publications.

[Z]

We are only working with available information here.

Logically, under present conditions of 9-11, explain an image of the WTC 2 core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) as being anythign but concrete.

Several valid explanations have been offered. Since your image does not, in fact, show what can only be a concrete core, you need other evidence.

Let's see it.

[beachnut]

Maxim:
If a suppossed explantion does not explain the event, it is not the truth. No explanation that does not explain the event can be the truth.

So far no explanation in existence explains free fall and total pulverization of the towers appears to exist. Has anyone seen one?

Read the NIST report.

Some one has been sending you fake letters from people.

But you should read the NIST report. Have you?

[Z]

I know there is a conspiracy to conceal the true design and construction of the Twin Towers, which is why the designer of the towers chose April 1, 2006 to post this message. Those who can confirm the concrete core are afraid to.

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center

Another lie.

[Christophera]

Show me a concrete core in a construction photograph.

The images of the constrcution have been filtered and the few images of the concrete during constrcution are not available.

You will have to settle for an image of the demolition showing the WTC 2 core exposed. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)

Unless of course you are a disinformation agent and do not care about your reputation and credibility whereupon you will insist time and time again that I produce information which you know is unavailable.

[Z]

I know the core of the Twin Towers was a steel reinforced cast concrete tube. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) Why should I question sources that agree with raw evidence showing what can only be a steel reinforced cast concrete tube?

You are duped into believing that powerful universities cannot control information about their publications.

:dl:

So now PBS was raided, people's personal TV Guide collections were altered, AND the Oxford Press has been concealing a book they published, but that doesn't even exist in the Library of Congress records, eBay, or Amazon.com entries?

Pathetic.

The World Trade Center twin towers had a concrete-cladded, steel frame core.

[Christophera]

Another lie.

You could prove that by contacting the person who says they wrote it and asking them. He might be past his fear and ready to tell the truth in a way that does not compromise it. Are you ready to test that?

[Arus808]

I know the core of the Twin Towers was a steel reinforced cast concrete tube. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) Why should I question sources that agree with raw evidence showing what can only be a steel reinforced cast concrete tube?

So are you now saying that there is no such book that you've been claiming for the last 200+ pages?

Good, so please remove that scan of that non existant passage from a non-existant book from your website.

Continuing to keep somehting that was proven to be fabricated is wholly dishonest of you.



LOOK guys! I got him to prove that his "skyscraper" scanned passage was a fabricated piece of eVidence!

If he's lied about that, then we can can assume that he's lied about everything else.

CASE CLOSED!

[Christophera]

:dl:

So now PBS was raided, people's personal TV Guide collections were altered, AND the Oxford Press has been concealing a book they published, but that doesn't even exist in the Library of Congress records, eBay, or Amazon.com entries?

Pathetic.

The World Trade Center twin towers had a concrete-cladded, steel frame core.

Information is more controlled today than it ever has been in the past. What makes you think this deception is not worth the effort needed to make it successful?

[Arus808]

Information is more controlled today than it ever has been in the past. What makes you think this deception is not worth the effort needed to make it successful?


What are you talking about? By the way other Ct'ers claim, information is more GUARDED now than of 33 years ago.

Remember, I just proved you fabricated evidence about the book and also proved you wrong about the term C4 being used back in 1967.

All through simple research.

[Christophera]

So are you now saying that there is no such book that you've been claiming for the last 200+ pages?


No. I am not saying that, you are. This scan of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) is real as far as I know. It was provided to me by a 9-11 truth seeker in the UK who went to a library who photocopied a page then scanned it. It is supported/confirmed by raw images of the towers demolition which exposed the primary structure. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) That linked image of the concrete core is supported by others.

Your efforts are beginning to appear as an organized disinformation program.

[Arus808]

No. I am not saying that, you are. This scan of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) is real as far as I know.

Again, for the last time, as far as you "know" is not proof of anything.
because I CALLED the oxford university press about it.

NO SUCH BOOK UNDER THAT TITLE HAS EVER BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

It was provided to me by a 9-11 truth seeker in the UK who went to a library who photocopied a page then scanned it.

And you trust this no named anonyous persom from the UK, without questioning his motives or biasness?

SHOULDN'T it be your job to verify ALL information you receive from unreliable sources PRIOR To posting it on a website?

No, of course it shouldn't......

[Christophera]

What are you talking about? By the way other Ct'ers claim, information is more GUARDED now than of 33 years ago.

Remember, I just proved you fabricated evidence about the book and also proved you wrong about the term C4 being used back in 1967.

All through simple research.

You have simply proven that the conspiracy to conceal evidence that was public extends to major universities. You have also prove that you are a disinformation agent who has no regard for laws which everybody knows have bee violated by government.

This is all substancial because the concrete core is fully evidenced by images of the demolition which show the concrete core of WTC 2 (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG).

[Z]

The images of the constrcution have been filtered and the few images of the concrete during constrcution are not available.

Because they never existed.

You will have to settle for an image of the demolition showing the WTC 2 core exposed. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG)


Sorry - I see no concrete core in that image.

Unless of course you are a disinformation agent and do not care about your reputation and credibility whereupon you will insist time and time again that I produce information which you know is unavailable.

I'm a disinterested third party, Chris. I don't care one way or another. Why? Because if you're wrong, which is likely, then the only thing we need to worry about is how long our government is going to keep using 9/11 as an excuse. And if you're right, the government is all-powerful anyway, and there's nothing we can do about it. Since my life is perfectly comfortable and safe, I see no reason to bother.

However, let's talk about credibility, shall we?

You're an admitted mental case; you've been caught now on numerous occasions either a) making up 'supporting evidence', or b) using evidence someone else made up; you've claimed to have an excellent memory, but can't seem to remember details at al well - for example, Ally McBeal, 1990 or 1989, the age of the Mohawk worker, etc. When we do get you to almost concede a point, you wait a few posts and revert to old posting habits. You redefine terms to suit your theory (example: free fall, pulverisation, total, reason, common sense).

And even assuming you're not just a compulsive obsessive liar, what do you do about this terrible conspiracy? You make up several poorly-made websites, post on an internet forum where almost no one takes you seriously, and... and... what?

Nothing.

You're a laughing stock, Chris. At one point I was trying to ignore you, but it's so funny to watch you backpeddle and equivocate... solid gold comedy.

Your knowledge of construction is pathetic. You made claims such as 'all skyscrapers have a concrete core' and 'steel flexes too much to be used in tall, thin buildings'. You talk about 3" rebar, which doesn't exist. You discuss butt-welding steel beams as if it unifies them on a molecular level.

Meanwhile, what are you really? Apparently, a ditch-digger.

The only way you will EVER gain credibility in anyone's eyes now is to produce this mysterious documentary, the notorious Oxford's book, some real evidence of a concrete core, and, while you're at it, documentation proving what you do and have done for a living.

Until you do any of that, you're just a clown, here to amuse us.

Carry on, jester! Carry on!

[Arus808]

You have simply proven that the conspiracy to conceal evidence that was public extends to major universities. You have also prove that you are a disinformation agent who has no regard for laws which everybody knows have bee violated by government.

YOU have proven nothing

And I just proved two of your evidence have been fabricated.
1) your non existant book
2) your claim of C4 being used in 1967

[Z]

You could prove that by contacting the person who says they wrote it and asking them. He might be past his fear and ready to tell the truth in a way that does not compromise it. Are you ready to test that?


Sure. Send me his address. His real address.

[Z]

Information is more controlled today than it ever has been in the past. What makes you think this deception is not worth the effort needed to make it successful?

Information is more accessible today than it ever has been in the past.
If the feds can't keep the recipe for methamphetimene (however it's spelled) off the internet, how are they going to eliminate any and ALL traces of books, movies, etc - including from people's private collections?

How can a book be in the library in the UK, but not exist in any catalogue anywhere?

[Z]

No. I am not saying that, you are. This scan of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation, published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) is real as far as I know. It was provided to me by a 9-11 truth seeker in the UK who went to a library who photocopied a page then scanned it. It is supported/confirmed by raw images of the towers demolition which exposed the primary structure. (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) That linked image of the concrete core is supported by others.

Your efforts are beginning to appear as an organized disinformation program.

Translation:

"Waaaah! Stop it! You're ruining my proofs!!!"

[Christophera]

YOU have proven nothing

And I just proved two of your evidence have been fabricated.
1) your non existant book
2) your claim of C4 being used in 1967


Are you listing your assigned disinformation tasks? If so, you failed.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html